Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 45045 Docket No. MW-45619
23-3-NRAB-00003-220779
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Elizabeth C. Wesman when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division – (IBT Rail Conference
(Springfield Terminal Railway Company STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
“Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned or otherwise allowed junior employe E. Cooper to perform overtime work on Carrier Truck V1996 at East Deerfield Yard on May 26, 2018, instead of assigning senior employee S. Wyman thereto.
As a consequence of this violation referred to in Part (1) above, Claimant S. Wyman shall now ‘…be compensated nine (9) hours at the Work Equipment time and one-half rate of pay as well as all credits for vacation and all other benefits for the dates claimed for the missed work opportunity….’”
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.
Form 1 Award No. 45045
Page 2 Docket No. MW-45619
23-3-NRAB-00003-220779
At the time this case arose, Claimant S. Wyman was assigned as a Work Equipment Repairman (WER) in the Carrier’s Work Equipment Subdepartment. Employe E. Cooper, who was junior to the Claimant was also working in that department. On the date in question, May 26, 2018, Employe Cooper again reported for work and was compensated for the overtime.
The Organization protests that, since the Claimant was senior to Mr. Cooper, he should have been called for the overtime work on May 26, 2018. It points out the importance of consideration of seniority in assigning overtime in accordance with the Parties Agreement. Since there is no question that the Claimant was not asked to perform the overtime work and Mr. Cooper was allowed to perform it on May 26, 2018, the Claimant should be reimbursed for his lost work opportunity. The Organization maintains that the claim should be sustained in full.
The Carrier notes that when it found it had overtime work available on May 25, 2018, it contacted the Claimant first, and he declined the assignment but recommended Mr. Cooper, who then worked the overtime on that date. The Carrier asserts that no Carrier official called Mr. Cooper to come in on the following day, but that he showed up unasked, and his supervisor allowed him to complete the work he had begun on the previous day. It contends that it did not violate the Agreement, and the instant claim should be denied.
The Board has reviewed this record with care. Evidence on the record clearly shows without doubt that Mr. Wyman declined the offer of May 25, 2018 overtime work, and suggested the Claimant be used instead. When Mr. Cooper failed to complete the task he was assigned on May 25, 2018, he reported to work (unbidden) on May 26, 2018 to do so. Under the circumstances, we do not find that the Carrier was at fault in this case. Accordingly, the instant claim is denied.
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 7th day of September 2023.