These claims, dated October 1 and November 19, 2007, originated on the property separately, but were consolidated in this proceeding because they are identical with respect to Rule 55, Preference for Overtime Work.
The Organization alleges a violation of Rule 55 when the Carrier, instead of using the Claimants, called upon other IMjW Repairmen to support projects for concrete tie rehabilitation, joint elimination and tie replacement on the New York Division. The Claimants, assigned to the shop at the Adams MlW Base, rely on Rule 55 in their claims of overtime preference to provide coverage for track equipment used to assist a Track Department gang.
The progression of this claim on property shows that it was processed in the usual and customary manner including placement before the highest officer of the Carrier designated to handle it.
Rule 55 states "[e]mployes will, if qualified and available, be given preference for overtime work, including calls, on work ordinarily and customarily performed by them, in order of their seniority."
Third Division Award 32154 concluded that "Rule 55 allows, indeed requires, [the Carrier] to make distinction between individuals within a class where such distinctions are appropriate." Applying Award 32154 to the findings that follow, the Board concludes that the Carrier appropriately made distinctions within Rule 55.
Specifically, the Claimants ordinarily and customarily perform work at Adams M/W Base on major overhauls and restoration of equipment in the shop. As with the Claimants, the two MlW Repairmen are headquartered at the Adams NM Base, but they are assigned to gangs with their duties in the field where they perform maintenance and minor repairs as well as troubleshoot. This distinction of duties within the class (Repairmen) is appropriate within Rule 55 as noted in Award 32154.
Besides Award 32154, the Organization recognizes this class distinction as it arises in these claims - "there was a very clear distinction between what type of N1:IW Repairmen work was `ordinarily and customarily' performed by the Claimants versus" the two Repairmen who got this assignment.
Consistent with Rule 55 and distinctions within class, the Carrier assigned this contested overtime work to two field M/W Repairmen thereby placing responsibility Form I Award No. 41095
with them for maintenance of all equipment used by Track Department employees and necessary repairs during the course of the projects.
Although the Claimants occasionally perform work in the field, such work is ordinarily and customarily performed by field Repairmen. Therefore, the Claimants' occasional performance does not bestow a preference for overtime in these claims.
Aside from the distinctions in Repairmen work, the Board finds that M/W Repairman Barth on certain dates in Case Nos. SD-4720 and 4722 and M/W Repairman Lockett on September 27, 2007 in Case SD-4723 performed overtime work which was continuous with their regularly assigned tours of duty. Continuous work into overtime is not a violation of Rule 55. (See Third Division Award 36048.)
In short, there is no compelling reason or evidence from the Organization to disrupt the persuasive conclusions in Awards 32154 and 36048.
Given these circumstances, the Board finds no violation of the Agreement and denies the claims.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.