This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
At all times relevant to this dispute, the Claimant was assigned to a Signal Gang on the Rock Island Engineering District as the Vacation Relief Signal Maintainer, a monthly rated position. The position's scheduled hours were 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and relief duties as assigned. On July 4, 2007, the Claimant worked voluntary overtime. On July 2-6, 2007, he was assigned to relieve the first shift Gresham Signal Maintainer. Beginning July 7, 2007, the Claimant was assigned to relieve the relief (swing) shift Gresham Signal Maintainer, and he filled this position on July 7 and 8, 2007, regularly assigned workdays for the swing shift position.
Citing Rules 15, 51, and the Side Letter to Supplement No. 2 dated April 15, 1994, the Organization asserts that the Claimant was entitled to pay at the overtime rate for his work on July 7 and July 8, 2007, because those days were, respectively, the sixth day and rest day for the first shift Gresham Signal Maintainer position that he had relieved from July 2-6, 2007. The Carrier contends that the Claimant, as a monthly-rated employee, was properly compensated, citing among other authorities, the Side Letter dated April 15, 1994.
In Third Division Award 40897, the Board concluded that under Supplement No. 2 and the letter dated April 15, 1994, the Vacation Relief employee assumes the assigned work days, sixth day and rest day of the position that he is relieving, but cannot be required to work more than eight consecutive days at the straight time rate of pay. We reiterate that conclusion in this case, for the reasons stated there.
In that case, the issue was only whether the employee (the Claimant here as well) was entitled to overtime compensation for work on one relief assignment on the rest day of the preceding one. Here, the question is merely whether the schedule of the prior assignment, the first shift Gresham Signal Maintainer, applied to the Claimant's work on his next assignment, relieving the swing shift Gresham Signal Maintainer. That question is answered by our decision in Award 40897 - the Claimant worked on the regular work days of the swing shift position, and therefore, is not entitled to additional compensation for working on a sixth day or rest day. However, the claim Form 1 Award No. 40898
also asserts that the Carrier exceeded the eight-consecutive-day restriction in the April 15,1994 letter, an issue not raised by the circumstances of Award 40897.
The Carrier cannot require a Vacation Relief employee to work more than eight consecutive days at the straight time rate of pay under the quoted language of the Side Letter dated April 15, 1994. That limitation was not violated in this case. As far as the record indicates, the Claimant worked voluntary overtime on July 4, 2007. Therefore, he did not work more than eight days at the straight time rate when he worked on July 7 and July 8, 2007. Accordingly, the claim is denied.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.