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.
The Roadmaster ordered that all Group 3 machines run all night to avoid weather related problems in the morning. The machines ran, but did not move or repair track. Two Repair Track Subdepartment Assistant Foremen who regularly work from 8:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. were assigned to watch them. Their responsibilities were to monitor fuel levels and to check for breakdowns (water, air, oil leaks, broken belts, low fuel, warning lights, etc.). Each received 34 hours' pay at the time and one-half rate and 30 hours' pay at the double time rate.
Roadway Equipment Subdepartment Operators should have tended the machines rather than Assistant Foremen. It seeks overtime pay for the Claimants. It reasons (1) the Rules' unambiguous language and customary practice reserve the disputed work to senior Machine Operators in the Roadway Equipment Subdepartment (2) because Machine Operators perform the daily tasks involved during regular work hours, they are entitled to perform them during overtime (3) assignment of Assistant Foremen was improper because they did not assist any Foreman in directing work (4) the remedy appropriately seeks what the Claimants would have earned if correctly assigned and (5) arbitral precedent supports the Organization.
Form 1 Award No. 40502The Carrier states (1) the evidence and Agreement language do not support the claim (2) this is an intra-craft dispute requiring proof of exclusivity (3) because the machines were not operating there can be no exclusivity and, also, Assistant Foremen could be assigned incidental work per Rule 78 (4) Rule 55N contemplates operation of machines (5) an emergency existed because the Carrier cannot control extreme cold which allows the disputed assignment (6) assigning the Claimants to do the night work would have shut down their production during their regular shifts (7) the remedy is excessive and punitive because Claimants did none of the disputed work and overtime is claimed for their regular, already paid, work hours; and (8) Board precedent supports the Carrier.
This is an intra-craft dispute over the right to particular overtime work. The work is not part of regular, routine operation or maintenance. Nor was it an extension of any actual work performed by Roadway Equipment Subdepartment during regular hours and extended into overtime. Rather, it was an infrequent proactive reaction to severe weather intended to assure work-ready equipment when the next regular shift began. No pure language in the Agreement clearly promises this specific work exclusively to any classification or forbids any classification from performing it.
Importantly, these overtime claims assume the disputed work exclusively belongs to Roadway Equipment Subdepartment employees during regular work hours so that their right to perform it extends into overtime work hours. The assumption is incorrect.
In intra-craft disputes, the Third Division repeatedly has held that proof of exclusive, system-wide jurisdiction is necessary to reserve work to one Organization class rather than another class represented by the Organization. The principle appears so well established that the Organization uses it to differentiate intra-craft assignments from subcontracting situations where vigorously disputed obligations are far less settled. Indeed, in several subcontracting disputes presently under consideration, the Organization makes the specific distinction. As two examples, in its Submission for Dockets MW-39948 and MW-39980, the Organization states: Form 1 Award No. 40502