Form I NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 41193
Docket No. SG-40754
12-3-NRAB-00003-090023
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Edwin H. Benn when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad
( Corporation (Metra)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"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 J. W. Price, for 12 hours overtime account
Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly
Rule 15 and Side Letter 10 (dated October 24, 1989), when it used a
junior employee instead of the Claimant for overtime service on
March 5, 2006 and denied the Claimant the opportunity to perform
this work. Carrier's File No. I1-21-563. General Chairman's File
No. 119-SW-06. BRS File Case No. 14134-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 I
Page 2
Award No. 41193
Docket No. SG-40754
12-3-NRAB-00003-090023
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 was a Signal Electronic Technician (SET) headquartered at
179th Street on the Southwest Service District with the Carrier's system as an
assigned territory. The Claimant worked a Monday through Friday schedule.
On Sunday, March 5, 2006, the Carrier assigned overtime to a Testman
junior to the Claimant who was headquartered at Blue Island on the Rock Island
District and who was regularly assigned to districts including the Rock Island, Gulf
Mobile and Ohio and Southwest Service Districts. The junior Testman was assigned
to change out and test the vital program EPROMS at CP Palos, which required all
FRA tests. On March 3 and 4, 2006 - the days immediately preceding the March 5,
2006 disputed work assignment - the junior Testman worked at CP Palos replacing
EPROMS. The overtime work performed on March 5, 2006 by the junior Testman
was a continuation of the work previously performed by him at CP Palos. In the
days prior to March 5, 2006, the Claimant was not involved in the work at CP Palos.
The Organization's claim and arguments in
24, 19$9 version of Side Letter No. 10 and Rule 15.
case rely upon the October
The October 24, 19$9 version of Side Letter 10 provides, in relevant part:
"SIGNAL ELECTRONIC TECHNICIAN: An employee assigned
the duties of adjusting, repairing, maintaining and replacing
electronic and electromagnetic components, and equipment used in
connection with the systems and devices covered by this Agreement.
Such employee may in the performance of his duties, supervise,
instruct or direct any employees who may be assisting him in his
work."
Form I Award No. 41193
Page 3 Docket No. SG-40754
12-3-NRAB-00003-090023
Rule 15 provides, in relevant part:
"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 a preference to
such overtime if they desire."
This is not a case where the Claimant is asserting entitlement to overtime on
the basis of prior rights for work performed on his prior righted district where he is
stationed pursuant to the May 16, 1999 version of Side Letter 10. See Third
Division Award 41188 and authority cited therein. This is a claim by an SET for an
overtime assignment on work he was not associated with during the days prior to
the overtime assignment where the overtime work was assigned to a junior Testman
who was associated with the work during the days prior to the overtime assignment.
Neither the 1989 version of Side Letter No. 10 nor Rule IS relied upon by the
Organization entitled the Claimant to the work in dispute.
Accordingly, this claim must be denied.
AWARD
Claim denied.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders
that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of February 2012.