Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

THIRD DIVISION

Award No. 42442 Docket No. SG-41614 16-3-NRAB-00003-110269

The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Roger K. MacDougall 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 Railroad Corp:

Claim on behalf of C. Haywood for 72 hours pay at the straight-time rate and 64.25 hours pay at the overtime rate, K. C. Lovato for 72 hours pay at the straight-time rate and 54 hours pay at the overtime rate, K. D. Harris for 48 hours pay at the straight-time rate and 63 hours pay at the overtime rate, N. R. Gregory for 48 hours pay at the straight-time rate and 64 hours pay at the overtime rate, and W. Dunsworth for 48 hours pay at the straight-time rate and 47 hours pay at the overtime rate, account Carrier violated Agreement Rules 15, 26, Side Letter No. 10 (dated May 16, 1999), and the Memorandum of Agreement dated February 15, 1989, when it did not bulletin jobs on the Rock Island District for bid based on prior rights seniority and allowed gangs from other districts to perform work between the dates of December 5, 2009, and December 15, 2009, and did not allow the Claimants to perform this work. Carrier's File No. 11-21-753. General Chairman's File No. 3-RI-09. BRS File Case No. 14576NIRC."

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.

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

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

This is a dispute over which employees should have been assigned certain work in December of 2009.

The five Claimants, at the time this dispute arose, were assigned to the Carriers Signal Department on the Rock Island District. The instant dispute developed between December 5 and 15, 2009, when the Carrier worked signal employees for overtime service who, the Organization says, were junior to the Claimants in seniority.

The Carrier says that there is no requirement in the Agreement to assign overtime work to a senior journeyman without a connection to the work; the group of employees who performed the overtime began this work during their regular work hours; the overtime that flowed from the efforts of the group during their regular workweek was properly assigned to this group of employees and Rule 15 supports Carrier's position. Connection to the work is superior to seniority in the instant case; the Claimants were not part of the "group of employees who customarily work together;" Carrier determined Signal Maintainer Classification was the appropriate classification to perform this work; no calls were involved in this situation; the work was planned overtime, assigned to the incumbents of the position who performed it during their regular workweek. They say that Side Letter No. 10 and prior rights are not relevant in the instant case; that Carrier may assign the work to the group of employees it deems appropriate to perform it; prior rights do not override an employee's group assignment; there was no violation of Rule 26 Seniority; this rule does not state seniority will be applied on an absolute basis.

The Organization's position is that the Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties, particularly Rule 15, Rule 26, and Side Letter No. 10 when it failed to use the Claimants for overtime service between December 5 and 15, 2009. They say that the Carrier improperly assigned the work to employees who were junior to the Claimants.

They say that on the days in question, junior employees were used to perform work installing interlocking snow blowers. They say that the work involved was considered miscellaneous, not a continuation of a project, and thus should have been offered to the Claimants.

The Rules in question are as follows, in pertinent parts:

"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 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 twentyfour (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.

RULE 26SENIORITY DEFINED: Seniority shall consist of rights based on relative length of service of employees as herein provided.

SIDE LETTER NO. 10Prior 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."

In analyzing this issue, it is clear that, this being a time claim, the Organization bears the burden of proof. Thus, they must prove that the work was NOT part of a continuation of a project.

Based on the files and evidence reviewed before this Board, the Organization has not been able, in this instance, to meet that burden. It appears that the work was likely a continuation of work performed by the same people, in the same gang, during the time period in question.

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 31st day of October 2016.