Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

THIRD DIVISION

Award No. 42445 Docket No. SG-42005 16-3-NRAB-00003-120378

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. (Metra):

Claim on behalf of J. N. Totos, for 12.5 hours at the overtime rate, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rule 15 and past practice, when it used a junior employee instead of the Claimant for overtime service on April 2 and 3, 2011, and thereby denied the Claimant the opportunity to perform this work. Carrier's File No. 11-21-787. General Chairman's File No. 103-RI-11. BRS File Case No. 14752-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.

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 in the instant case is J. N. Totos, who, at the time this dispute arose, was assigned to a Signal Foreman position at Blue Island, Illinois, on Carrier's Rock Island District. This dispute developed on April 2 and 3, 2011, when the Carrier worked a signal employee for overtime service, who was junior in seniority to the Claimant and did not work the Claimant.

The Blue Island Signal Maintenance Gang needed additional personnel on a signal bridge renewal project, which required the use of an employee with a Commercial Driver's License (CDL).

The Organization says that the Claimant has a valid CDL and is senior to the employee worked. They say that Rule 15 compelled the Carrier to first go to the Claimant's gang and offer the overtime service to T. McGhee, the only incumbent in the gang that held a CDL position. After he declined, they say the Carrier should have offered the overtime to the most senior employee possessing a valid CDL in the gang. As they did not, they say the Carrier violated Rule 15 when it assigned the work to an employee of a different Signal Gang after Mr. McGhee declined the overtime work.

The Carrier agrees that they did first offer the overtime to Mr. McGhee, who did decline it. They also agree that Mr. McGhee was the only incumbent on the gang who held a position which required a CDL. However, the Carrier then departs from the position of the Organization. They say that the proper interpretation of the Rule in question is that the order of calling only encompasses positions which require the possession of a CDL, not simply anyone on the territory who happens to possess one.

This, then, is the crux of the case.

The key rule in question, then, is found in Appendix K, Side Letter No. 2 of May 16, 1999. It states, in pertinent part:

"In connection with adoption of Wage, Rule and Benefit Agreement today, it is understood that with reference to the operation of Signal Department trucks which require the operator to hold a Commercial Driver's License (CDL) the following shall apply:

Incumbents of all positions advertising CDL requirements pursuant to the Letter of Understanding on this subject, dated April 15, 1994, will be entitled to the respective overtime associated with such positions during which operation of a truck requiring the Commercial Driver's License is necessary."

This Side Letter, in the view of this Board, is very clear. The Side Letter speaks, as the Carrier says, in terms of a requirement of the position. Had they assigned the work otherwise, they most surely would have faced a claim from the person who actually did perform the work. That claim would have been sustained. This one is not.

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.