"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Rail Corp.:
Claim on behalf of T. H. Stone, for 12 hours pay at the overtime rate for each day the violation occurred, June 3, 4, 10, 11, 17 and 18, 2006, account Carrier violated the current Signalman's Agreement, particularly Rule 15, and Side Letter No. 10 (SET letter dated October 24, 1989), when Carrier allowed employees who were junior to the Claimant to perform overtime service in connection with a tie gang working on the Milwaukee District; as a result the Claimant lost a valuable work opportunity. Carrier's File No. I1-21-579. General Chairman's File No. 9-MW-06. BRS File Case No. 14055-
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
In June 2006, a gang of Signal employees was assigned to provide support for a Maintenance of Way tie gang on the Milwaukee Engineering District and the Signal gang performed this work during their scheduled workweek. When overtime became necessary to support the Maintenance of Way tie gang on the weekend, the Carrier assigned employees from the Signal gang to perform the weekend overtime.
According to the Carrier, the Claimant was the senior Signal Testman and Signal Journeyman on the Milwaukee District. At the time this dispute arose, the Claimant had assigned hours of 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. The Claimant was not involved in the project performed by the Maintenance of Way and Signal gangs during the workweek prior to the weekend overtime in dispute. The Claimant was senior to the Signal employees who received the weekend overtime. Further, the Claimant also held prior rights on the Milwaukee District. This claim was filed when the Claimant did not receive the overtime assignments on the dates set forth in the claim.
The Organization does not seek overtime work performed on the same day as the Signal employees who supported the Maintenance of Way gang, but seeks weekend overtime work on the Milwaukee District for the Claimant as a senior prior rights employee in that district.
First, Side Letter No. 10 (dated May 16, 1999) clearly gives the Claimant the right to the claimed overtime work ("[pIrior rights takes priority in the exercise of seniority, overtime allocation . . . .")
Second, in Public Law Board No. 5565, Award 34, the same dispute was determined in the Organization's favor under the clear provisions of Side Letter No. 10:
For the Carrier to prevail, the Board would have to find Public Law Board No. 5565, Award 34 palpably erroneous. We cannot do so. That Award reasonably (and correctly, we believe) applies the relevant language to a similar factual dispute. For purposes of stability, we cannot find that Award to be palpably erroneous.
This Referee's decision in Third Division Award 39491 involved an employee who was a Signal Electronic Technician (SET) on the Milwaukee District who was senior to other employees who were assigned weekend overtime work on a cutover working with electronic equipment (GCP's, SEAR units, SSCC, codeline, AFTAC) and general signal circuits on the Milwaukee District. The Organization's reliance on Side Letter No. 10 was rejected because it was not found to entitle the employee therein to the overtime: Form 1 Award No. 41188
From that Award, prior rights of the employee therein were not asserted as the driving factor for entitlement to the overtime assignment. This case is about prior rights under Side Letter No. 10 for overtime assignments.
To the extent the Carrier argues that Third Division Award 40832 can deprive a senior employee with prior rights from weekend overtime opportunities on the employee's prior rights district, the Carrier reads the language "[p]rior rights takes priority in the exercise of . . . overtime allocation . . ." out of Side Letter No. 10 and disregards the holding of Public Law Board No. 5565, Award 34. That conclusion simply does not flow from the clear language of Side Letter No. 10 and the similarly clear holding of Public Law Board No. 5565, Award 34 which is on all fours with this case. The same holds for the Carrier's reliance upon Third Division Awards 40829, 40833, 40834 and 40904. Third Division Award 28490 relied upon by the Carrier does not address Side Letter No. 10.
The bottom line here is that the language of Side Letter No. 10 is clear and unambiguous - "Prior rights, and the seniority that goes with it, shall be applied as being superior to an individual's relative position on the system seniority roster when an employee is stationed on their prior rights district. Prior rights takes priority in the exercise of seniority, overtime allocation . . . ." [Emphasis added] Public Law Board No. 5565, Award 34 recognized the clarity of that language and governs this dispute. The claim must therefore be sustained. If the Carrier desires to change the language which affects prior rights employees, it will have to do so at the bargaining table or wait until the prior rights employees are no longer an issue as a result of attrition.
In terms of a remedy, the Claimant lost overtime opportunities. The Claimant shall therefore be made whole for those lost opportunities. However, if Form 1 Award No. 41188
the Claimant earned overtime on any of the dates set forth in the claim, those amounts shall be offset against the Carrier's liability.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.