This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
The Claimant was at the time of this dispute assigned to the position of Signalman on Gang No. 3962. On Friday morning May 7, 2004, the Claimant called his Supervisor, the Manager, Signal Construction, and told him he would not be in to work that day. The Claimant said nothing about his availability to work over the weekend. The Manager was notified later on Friday that there was work available for Saturday May 8 and instructed the Signal Foreman to request the needed people to work on Saturday. No one contacted the Claimant to work. As a result, an employee junior to the Claimant was permitted to work overtime on May 8.
Rule 13 states: "Where gang men are required to work overtime, the senior man in a class in the gang will be given preference to such overtime work." The Organization contends that pursuant to Rule 13, the Carrier had an obligation to notify the Claimant of the work opportunity before working a junior employee, because he had never notified the Carrier that he would be unavailable for that work, and seeks as a remedy that the Carrier compensate the Claimant ten hours pay at his overtime rate to compensate for the lost opportunity. The Carrier responds that it has long been held that an employee on personal leave is not considered available to work until he returns to his regular assignment, which the Claimant did not do until the Monday following the overtime.
Preference for overtime assignments is a major benefit of seniority. However, numerous Third Division Awards establish that an employee on vacation or personal leave is not considered available for overtime until he returns to his regular assignment, and a Carrier is not required to call employees on vacation or personal leave for overtime work. See Third Division Awards 23198, 29092, 29261 and 31790.
The record indicates that the Claimant's Manager in the past has called in employees who have given management advance notice of their availability for rest day overtime work after a Friday lay-off, and has instructed employees to give that Form 1 Award No. 39146
advance notice in order to be considered. However, the Claimant never gave notice of his availability for work on his rest days after his lay off.
The Manager's accommodation did not change the parties' fundamental expectation that an employee on personal leave is not to be considered available for overtime until he returns to his regular assignment. The Carrier had no obligation to call him for rest day overtime work ahead of the junior employee.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.