The Claimant holds seniority as a Foreman in the Track Department and is regularly assigned to Gang 6133 at Penn Coach Yard in Philadelphia. On Friday, September 3. 2004 (one of the Claimant's rest days) the Carrier called Equipment Operators J. Lesnifsky and J. Picciotti (members of the Claimant's gang who were also on a rest day) to operate a backhoe and a front-end loader performing grading work on a parking garage project. Lesnifsky and Picciotti worked ten hours that
Although Lesnifsky and Picciotti were called for overtime on September 3, 2004, the Claimant was not. The Organization contends in this case that Lesnifsky and Picciotti received job briefings, instructions and directions from Supervisor D. Hammond and also worked under Hammond's supervision for the ten hours they worked on September 3, 2004 and, therefore, Hammond improperly performed the Claimant's Foreman's duties on that date. In short, according to the Organization. in addition to Lesnifsky and Picciotti, the Claimant should also have been called for overtime on September 3, 2004.
First, according to the initial claim presented on the property dated October 28, 2004, the Organization alleged that "The Carrier violated Rule 55 of the current Agreement when it assigned and allowed Supervisor D. Hammond to perform the duties of a Track Foreman on an overtime assignment." Rule 55(x) provides that "Employees will, if qualified and available, be given preference for overtime work, including calls, on work ordinarily and customarily performed by them, in order of their seniority." There is nothing in that Rule (or any other Rule cited to us) which requires that when overtime is assigned to some members of a gang that a Foreman must also be called for that same overtime. The decision to call overtime and the
and rtcciotti job briefings. T here is nothing in Rule 55 or any other Rule which requires that job briefings must only be performed by a Foreman. On the contrary, the evidence shows that the employee in charge of the work typically conducts the job briefing. Therefore, Supervisor Hammond could conduct a .job briefing.
Third, the Organization's argument that Supervisor Hammond obtained track foul time to allow Lesnifsky and Picciotti to perform their work does not nrove that Hammond imnrnn~rtv nerfnrmed Vnreman~e diitlne Plitt;nn oci~Tn !ho Carrier's assertion that such permission was not necessary because the work was performed in the yard and was not under the jurisdiction of a Dispatcher, there is nothing in the record which shows that only a Foreman can obtain that type of
Fourth, employee submitted evidence shows that Hammond issued instructions. But again, as a Supervisor, that is the kind of work that Hammond would ordinarily perform.
Fifth, although there is some question as to how much contact was had with Lesnifskv and Picciotti, the evidence reveals that thi-rp wac annthpr Fnraman nn duty when Lesnifsky and Picciotti worked the overtime. ^Foreman J. McKeever worked his regular assigned tour of duty that day. There is no Rule or factual support for the Organization's position that the calling of Lesnifsky and Picciotti to »9. over':-- ,..7.... _.7 ~l__ __91_·__- _C
Based on the above, the claim lacks factual and Rule support and must be denied. Form I Award No. 38127