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.
At the time this dispute arose, the Claimant was a Signal Electronic Technician (SET) on the Milwaukee District. He worked a Monday through Friday schedule, with Saturday and Sunday as rest days.
On January 4 (Saturday) January 5 (Sunday) and January 12 (Sunday) 2003, the Carrier assigned overtime to employees who were junior to the Claimant on the seniority roster. The overtime involved work on a cutover working with electronic equipment (GCP's, SEAR units, SSCC, codeline, AFTAC) and general signal circuits on the Milwaukee District. This claim followed, with the Organization relying upon Side Letter No. 10 and Rule 15 for support of its position.
Side Letter No. 10 addresses the establishment of the SET position. However, Side Letter No. 10 does not obligate the Carrier to assign the Claimant the disputed overtime work merely because he held an SET position. On the contrary, Side Letter No. 10 specifically states that "[t]his rule shall not be construed as prohibiting Signal Maintainers or other qualified Signalmen from making test, inspections and repairs as necessary." [Emphasis added]. The Claimant gains no assignment rights from Side Letter 10 for the disputed work.
Rule 15 also does not help the Claimant's asserted entitlement to the work. In pertinent part, Rule 15 states that "[w]hen overtime is required of a part of a group of employees who customarily work together, the senior qualified available employees of the class involved shall have preference to such overtime if they so desire." In its July 3, 2003 letter at Note 2, the Carrier asserts that the ". . . [C]laimant is not a member of a group of employees who customarily work Form 1 Award No. 39491
together." That assertion was not refuted on the property. Rule 15 therefore does not give the Claimant assignment rights for the disputed overtime work.
Throughout, the Carrier asserted that it deemed the workforce selected was sufficient and qualified to perform the work. The Organization failed to prove that determination violated any specific Rule of the Agreement. But in order to prevail, that is what the Organization must prove. The claim must therefore be denied.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.