The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
In reviewing this matter, we confined our analysis to only the evidence and argument that was advanced during the handling of the claim by the parties on the property. According to that record, the Claimant was the senior furloughed employee to be called for the assignment in question. The Organization and the Claimant contend he was available but was not called. Per the Claimant's statement, he was home and had caller ID but no calls from the Carrier were registered on the claim dates. The Claimant submitted a statement to that effect.
The Carrier, to the contrary, maintains that the Claimant was called twice but there was no answer. Moreover, it asserted that the calls for the assignment would have been made in advance of the date of the vacancy. The Carrier provided a statement from the employee who made the two attempts to call the Claimant.
We note that the Claimant's statement does not provide any availability or caller ID information for the days in advance of the claim dates. The Carrier official who placed the calls to the Claimant's number also observed that the Claimant did not return any phone calls to the Carrier based on the caller ID information that should have been registered on his phone equipment.
Given the foregoing state of the record, we find that a violation of the Agreement has not been proven.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.