This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
The Organization contends that the Carrier improperly used a Trackman junior in seniority to the Claimant (Trackman J. Jackson) to perform overtime work in the vicinity of Rouses Point, New York, on March 2, 2002 in violation of Rule Nos. 1, 4,11, and 15 of the current Agreement.
There is no question that the Claimant holds seniority as a Trackman with the Maintenance of Way Department dating from January 1, 1980, whereas Jackson has seniority as a Trackman dating from July 13,1987.
The Carrier disputes the Organization contentions that there was a violation of Agreement Rules in having Trackman Jackson perform the overtime work at issue. It says that there was a derailment on its mainline at Rouses Point on the date of claim, March 2, 2002, and a need existed to call employees from other Sub-Divisions to assist in clearing the derailment.
The Claimant, who, at the time, held a permanent position as a System Equipment Operator (SEO) in another Sub-Division, was called and used to assist at the derailment site as an SEO. After working for a period of time at the derailment as an SEO, the Clamant was released from such derailment service. Trackman Jackson, who had also been summoned from another Sub-Division to work as a Trackman, along with other Trackmen, continued to work at the derailment site as a Trackman, for which service he was compensated 16 hours at the time and one-half rate of pay, and one and one-half hours at the Trackman's double time rate of pay.
Basically, it is the position of the Organization that notwithstanding the Claimant having been summoned to work at the derailment site as a SEO, that upon completion of such SEO work he should have been assigned to work as a Trackman in place of Trackman Jackson because he holds greater seniority in the Maintenance of Way Department as a Trackman. Form 1 Award No. 39703
The Board well recognizes, as the Organization states, that seniority is one of the most important cornerstones upon which Agreements are made, and included in Agreements to give preference to jobs and work opportunities, among other things.
The distinction the Board finds in. the case at issue is that the Claimant was called under Agreement Rules to the derailment site to be used as a SEO, whereas Jackson was called to be used as a Trackman. In this respect, we do not read any of the seniority provisions as cited to give preference for overtime work in the order of seniority by allowing an employee to unilaterally move from the job classification for which called and used to a different job classification because work assigned to the latter job classification is going to be of a longer duration and will provide more overtime work. Therefore, because the Claimant was called and went on duty as a SEO, the Board finds no Agreement support for the contention that upon completion of assigned work as an SEO at the derailment site, the Claimant had a seniority right to immediately displace junior Trackman Jackson, who had been called for work at the derailment at the same time as the Claimant, and was working at the derailment site as a Trackman.
Clearly, the Board's decision would be different had any exercise of seniority rights occurred, at the very least, when called for work at the derailment site as a SEO and have asked to be used as a Trackman rather than as an SEO. An analogy would be that of someone being allowed to change a bet midway through a horserace once it was evident that the horse they had selected was not going to finish that day as the top money maker.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.