Fourteen claims of 8 hours overtime submitted by me for dates April 30, May 7, 14, 28, June 18, 25, July 2, 9, 16, 23, 30, August 20, September 10 and October 8, 2006, account Carrier erroneously called Savannah, Ga, guaranteed extra board employee B. R. Lively on what should have been one of his two unassigned not-necessarilyconsecutive rest days to protect my Sunday "tag" rest day, a day which is not part of any regular relief assignment.
For all claim dates except October 8, 2006, did the Carrier violate the 60-day time limits stipulations found in Rule 37 of the collective bargaining agreement when it declined my two appeals covering the first thirteen claims?
Lively actually observe his two unassigned not-necessarilyconsecutive rest days each workweek of my claims prior to being called to protect my Sunday "tag" rest days? Form I Award No. 39666
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.
Our review of this voluminous record does not reveal proper support for the Claimant's procedural contention that the Carrier's responses failed to comply with applicable time limits. The record establishes that the Carrier and the Organization have a valid agreement pertaining to the issuance of Carrier responses following conference on the property. The record does not establish that the Carrier failed to comply with the applicable time limit. Therefore, the Claimant's objection must be rejected.
On the merits, the record establishes that Lively was called to work on the days in question pursuant to Rule 18(f) which grants a preference to employees who have not already worked 40 straight time hours in the given week.
Given the foregoing considerations, the record before the Board mandates that the claims must be denied. Form 1 Page 3