PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
OF CLAIM:
Form 1
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 41189
Docket No. SG-40744
12-3-NRAB-00003-080613
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Edwin H. Benn when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
(Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad
( Corporation (Metra)
"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 a violation that occurred on June 16, 200'7, account Carrier
violated the current Signalman's Agreement, particularly Rule 15,
and Side Letter No. 10 (dated May 16, 1999), when Carrier allowed
employees who were junior to the Claimant to perform overtime
service of conducting crossing renewal work at Catalpa Street, as a
result the Claimant lost a valuable work opportunity. Carrier's
No. 11-21-630. General Chairman's File No. 12-MW-07. BRS File
Case No. 14102-NIRC."
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the
evidence, finds that:
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.
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 41189
Docket No. SG-40744
12-3-NRAB-00003-080613
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
The Claimant is a Signal Testman who holds prior rights on the Milwaukee
District. On Saturday, June 16, 2007, the Carrier assigned overtime to junior
employees who had been working on a crossing renewal project on Catalpa Street
on the Milwaukee District. The Claimant did not receive the overtime assignment.
Nor was he associated with the work during the week. This claim followed.
The relevant Rules provide:
"RULE 15
SECTION 1 - (a) OVERTIME - BEFORE AND AFTER BASIC
DAY: The hourly rates named herein are for an assigned eight (8)
hour day. All service performed outside of the regularly established
working period shall be paid for as follows:
Overtime hours, either prior to or following and continuous
with regular working period, shall be computed on the
actual minute basis and paid for at one and one-half times
the basic straight time rate.
Time worked in excess of sixteen (16) hours of work in any
twenty-four (24) hour period, computed from the starting
time of the employee's regular shift, shall be paid for at
double their basic straight time rate.
When overtime service 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."
Form I
Page 3
Award No. 41189
Docket No. SG-40'744
12-3-NRAB-00003-080613
Side Letter No. 10
"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, and preference for receiving vacation or other
paid for time not worked."
As set forth in detail in Third Division Award 41188, Side Letter No. 10 and
Public Law Board No. 5565, Award 34 govern this dispute:
"First, Side Letter No. 10 clearly gives the Claimant the right to the
claimed overtime work (`[p]rior 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:
`. . . [U]nder
the plain words of Side Letter No. 10 his
RID priority rights `take priority in overtime
allocation'. Side Letter No. 10 entitled him to priority
in overtime allocation in the RID on March 10-11, 2001,
over an employee in the same seniority class who had
no such priority rights in the RID . . . .'
For the Carrier to prevail, the Board would have to find Public Law
Board No. 5565, Award 34 palpably erroneous. Vile 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.
Form I Award No. 41189
Page 4 Docket No. SG-40744
12-3-NRAB-00003-080613
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
In terms of a remedy, the Claimant lost overtime opportunities. The
Claimant shall therefore be made whole for those lost opportunities.
However, if the Claimant earned overtime on any of the dates set
forth in the claim, those amounts shall be offset against the Carrier's
liability."
The same logic governs this dispute.
Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.
ORDER
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.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of February 2012.