"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 C. Haywood and R. J. Shanahan, for 26 hours overtime each, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rule 15 and Side Letter 10 (dated May 16, 1999), when it used junior employees instead of the Claimants for overtime service on November 3 and 4, 2007, and denied the Claimants the opportunity to perform this work. Carrier's File No. 11-21-645. General Chairman's File No. 110-RI-07. BRS File Case No. 14199-NIRC."

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.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

At the time this dispute arose, Claimant R. J. Shanahan was a Signal Maintainer at the Joliet UD Interlocking and Claimant C. Haywood was a Signal Maintainer at the Root

Street Territory on the Rock Island District. The Claimants worked Monday through Friday schedules. The Claimants also held prior rights on the Rock Island District.

On Saturday, November 3 and Sunday, November 4, 2007, the Carrier assigned two Signal Electronics Technicians (SETS) who were junior to the Claimants to work overtime at the renewal of the 103rd Street crossing on the Main and Suburban Lines Territory on the Rock Island District. The SETS were used to jumper the crossing out of service, test the circuits, and then at the end of the work day to assure that the crossing was working properly. There is no showing that the Claimants were not qualified to perform the work.

As in Third Division Award 41188, Side Letter No. 10 dated May 16, 1999 ("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 . . . [and prior rights takes priority in the exercise of seniority, overtime allocation, and preference for receiving vacation or other paid for time not worked") and Public Law Board No. 5565, Award 34 govern this dispute and require a sustaining award.

In terms of a remedy, the Claimants shall be made whole for any lost overtime opportunities on the dates set forth in the claim. However, if the Claimants earned overtime on any of the dates set forth in the claim, those amounts shall be offset against the Carrier's liability.

AWARD