Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 45278 Docket No. SG-47777
24-3-NRAB-00003-230148
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: (
(Union Pacific Railroad Company STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
“Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the Union Pacific Railroad:
Claim on behalf of D. Metcalfe for 33.75 hours at his respective overtime rate of pay, account Carrier violated the Signalmen’s Agreement, particularly Rule 10, when on November 3, 5–9, 17–22, 2020, and
December 1, 2, 4–7, 2020, Carrier allowed a junior employee to perform overtime service prior to affording the opportunity to the Claimant. Carrier’s File No. 1748233, General Chairman’s File No. N 0264, BRS File Case No. 5925, NMB Code No. 308 - Contract Rules: Pay/Allowances/Penalty.”
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 was assigned to a Skilled Signal Foreman position on Gang 4010
in the Carrier’s Signal Department, with the assigned Zone Gang schedule consisting of eight days on, six days off. The original Signal Gang was split and the Carrier Supervisor instructed the Claimant and another member of the gang to perform a gang move. The other gang members were assigned to support a Maintenance of Way (MOW) Tie Gang.
The gang members who followed the MOW Tie Gang, including one junior in seniority to the Claimant, worked overtime from November 3, 5–9, and 17–22, 2020,
and from December 1, 2, and 4–7, 2020.
In a letter dated December 18, 2020, the Organization filed a claim on behalf of the Claimant. The Carrier denied the claim in a letter dated February 9, 2021. Following discussion of this dispute in conference, the positions of the parties remained unchanged, and this dispute is now properly before the Board for final adjudication.
The Organization contends that the Claimant was the Foreman of a group of employees who were assigned to work overtime. There is no dispute that the Claimant is senior to employees from the same gang who were assigned overtime in lieu of the Claimant.
Rule 10 – Overtime, states, “Where gang men are required to work overtime, the senior man in a class in the gang will be given preference to such overtime work.” The Organization contends that the Carrier violated Rule 10 in the improper assignment of the claimed work to a junior employee. As a result, the Claimant suffered a lost work opportunity.
The Organization contends that the Claimant was qualified to do the work associated with both projects. The Organization contends that as a Signal Foreman, the Claimant was not limited to a specific set of tasks or responsibilities.
The Organization contends that Rule 10 makes clear that the Claimant was to be given preference to overtime work based on seniority. He is entitled to be compensated for his lost work opportunity.
The Carrier contends that the Organization has failed to prove a violation of the controlling Agreement. The Carrier contends that the Organization has failed to prove that the Carrier was required to assign incidental overtime to the Claimant over the regularly assigned employees. While the Claimant was offered the
opportunity to be assigned the work in question, he refused and now claims the incidental overtime associated with the work. The Claimant was fully employed during the time period in question and suffered no loss of work.
The Carrier contends that the Claimant was not the regularly assigned employee available to perform the work. Once the work was accepted by the employees of the two-man signal gang, they became the regularly assigned employees and were entitled to the overtime. Additionally, the Claimant was located approximately three hours from the work location where the overtime occurred, therefore when the overtime occurred, it was impractical to offer and assign it to the Claimant. The Carrier contends that the Organization did not argue or prove that the Claimant was the senior man on the gang that performed the work. See also, Third Division Award 37535.
The record demonstrates that the claimed overtime work was neither planned nor scheduled in advance. It was incidental to the work of following the MOW Tie Gang. The Claimant was initially offered this work but did not volunteer for it. Once the junior employee accepted the assignment, he became the regular employee and was properly assigned the overtime. Given that the Claimant was not the regularly assigned employee and was more than three hours away, the Carrier was not obligated to offer this incidental overtime to him.
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 24th day of July 2024.