THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 44608 Docket No. SG-45828
22-3-NRAB-00003-200142
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Kathryn A. VanDagens when award was rendered.
(BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNALMEN PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (
(ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY) STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
“Claim on behalf of R.J. Grahman, for 12 hours pay at his overtime
rate of pay; account Carrier violated the current Signalmen’s Agreement, particularly Rule 13(i), when on August 27–29, 2018, it used a junior employee to perform scheduled overtime service without affording the opportunity to the Claimant, thereby causing him a lost work opportunity. Carrier's File No. IC-011-18. General Chairman's File No. IC-BRS-2018-00011. BRS File Case No. 16136-IC. NMB Code No. 172.”
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 assigned to the position of Signal Maintainer on the Champaign Subdivision. On August 27 through 29, 2018, the Carrier assembled a group of employees to perform flagging duties at a highway grade crossing. All the employees except for one gathered for the work were supervised by E.
Rutledge, who also supervised the Claimant. The employee who did not report to the Claimant’s Supervisor was headquartered over 100 miles away and was less junior than the Claimant.
By letter dated September 14, 2018, the Organization presented a claim to the Carrier which was denied by letter dated October 29, 2018. The parties were unable to resolve the claim on-property, so it is now properly before this Board for final adjudication.
The Organization contends that the Carrier violated Rule 13(I)(i) of the parties Agreement, which states,
RULE 13 (I) – OVERTIME
Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this rule, all service performed by hourly rated employees outside of the regular established work period shall be paid for at the time and one-half rate as follows:
***
(i) When overtime service is required of a part of a gang or group of employees, the senior employees of the gang or group involved, who are available, shall have preference to it.
The Organization contends that the Carrier formed a group of employees for purposes of working the overtime and that Claimant should have been included.
The Carrier contends that the Organization has failed to show any violation of the Agreement. The Carrier contends that it correctly assigned the proper employee to perform the overtime work.
The Carrier contends that the Claimant’s assignment to the same territory as the other called employees does not make him part of the same gang or group of
1 *The on-property record identifies the dates in dispute as August 28, 29, and 30, 2018. Since the total claim in either case is twelve hours of overtime, this Board treated the identified dates as a typographical error.
employees. The Carrier contends that a gang or group of employees is bulletined to work together, and Claimant was not bulletined with these employees.
In a claim of rules violation, the Organization bears the burden of proof. Here, in order to prevail, the Organization must show that the Claimant was part of a gang or group of employees that was called for overtime without him. There is no dispute that the Claimant was senior to Bennett, the man who was called for the overtime.
The Carrier replied that while the Rule addresses “gang” and “group,” it makes no mention of territory. It points out that previous awards on this property have found that “gang” and “group” refer something to different than a territory. See, e.g., PLB 6785, Award 74. The Carrier contends that the Organization’s proofs show only that the Claimant worked on the same territory and under the same supervisor, neither of which are mentioned in the Rule. Furthermore, the Claimant’s statement makes clear that he was assigned elsewhere on the days at issue.
When the language of the parties’ agreement is clear and unambiguous, this Board need look no further than the negotiated language agreed to by the parties to resolve their dispute. Here, Rule 13 (I) (i) requires the Carrier to offer overtime to the most senior employee in the gang or group. The Organization has not presented evidence sufficient to show that the Claimant was part of the gang or group involved. Sharing a supervisor or working the same territory with the called employees did not make him part of the gang or group.
We find that the Organization has failed to meet its burden of proving a violation of the Agreement.
Claim denied.
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 29th day of October 2021.