"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Rail Carp.:
Claim on behalf of M. L. Cathcart, for 14 hours overtime pay, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement particularly Rule IS and the Letter of Agreement regarding the calling of gangs for overtime service, when it used a junior employee instead of the Claimant for overtime service on June 3, 6, and 7, 2005, and denied the Claimant the opportunity to perform this work. Carrier's File No. 11-28-505. General Chairman's File No. 148-SZV-O5. BRS File Case No. 14119-NIRC."
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
In June 2005, a signal gang was assigned to provide support for a maintenanceof-way tie gang: Both gangs were assigned to the Rock Island Engineering District, consisting of the former Rock Island, GM&O, and Norfolk and Western territories (RIICWIISWS). Both gangs performed work during their regular workweek on the Carrier's Rock Island Engineering District, on the Southwest Service prior rights territory. Signalman Eastin, who is junior to the Claimant, was assigned to and performed work on the signal gang supporting the tie gang. Signalman Eastin was headquartered on a different prior rights district within the Rock Island Engineering District.
The Claimant was assigned as a Signal Foreman to a different gang, Signal Gang 4, prior to and on the dates in question. His scheduled hours were 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. The Claimant was not involved in the track project, nor did he have any connection to the work supporting the tie gang or the work performed by the signal gang assigned to support the tie gang. He was headquartered on the Southwest Service prior rights district.
Signalman Eastin worked five hours of overtime on June 3, two hours of overtime on June 6 and three hours of overtime on June 7, 2005, for a total of ten hours of overtime. The Organization contends that the Claimant was entitled to be called for that overtime because he was the most senior active signal employee on the NIRCRC Seniority Roster of Signal Department employees and was senior to Eastin and all other employees worked, and Eastin not only was junior, but he was headquartered on another district. The failure to call the Claimant for the overtime violated Rule 15 and the Letter of Agreement regarding the calling of gangs for overtime service, the Organization asserts. The Carrier contends that there was no violation of Rule 15 or the Letter of Agreement; the Carrier asserts that there is a single seniority district under the General Rules Agreement, and the Claimant did not have superior rights to the work simply because he was senior and headquartered on the district where the work was performed. Form 1 Page 3
When 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."
(a) When overtime service is required, the gang which performed the work during normal working hours will be called first.
(b) If additional personnel is needed, other signal employees will be called in seniority order from the gang (gangs if more than one are Form 1 Award No. 40$32
The Board recognizes that the parties in Side Letter No. 10 agreed to grant an employee superiority on the system seniority roster when an employee is stationed on their prior rights district. Signalman Eastin, like the Claimant, held seniority on the Rock Island Engineering District, but he was headquartered on the Southwest Services prior rights district. Thus the Claimant was the most senior employee within the Southwest Services prior rights district and the most senior employee on the system seniority roster.
However, the Board further finds that the Carrier properly applied the parties' Letter of Agreement concerning the calling of gangs for overtime service. That Letter of Agreement, entered into the same day as Side Letter No. 10, applies more specifically to the situation here. The record reflects that the disputed overtime work was work to support the Maintenance of Way tie gang, a continuation of the work that Signalman Eastin's gang had performed during its regular workweek. Signalman Eastin, therefore, had the right to the work under the Letter of Agreement, notwithstanding Side Letter No. 10, because Eastin was part of the gang that had performed the work during the regular workweek, and the Claimant, although more senior, had not. The Carrier correctly determined here, as in Third Division Award 24890, that the connection to the work gave a superior right over seniority in the allocation of overtime.