NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD
PUBLIC LAW BOARD No. 7163
Brotherhood
of
Maintenance
of
Way }
Employes Division, IBT Rail Conference )
VS.
} Case No. 110
} Award No. 110
CSX Transportation, Inc. }
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
I. The Agreement was violated on June 6, 2010, when the Carrier failed to
call and assign B&B Department employes W. Neisz, D. Love and D.
Brown to overtime on June 7, 2010 on the Henderson Bridge and instead
called and assigned junior employes R. Clark, A. Weisheit and R. Carter
(System File 156751 1 1012010-0681 19).
2. As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part I above, Claimants
W. Neisz, D. Love and D. Brown shall now each be compensated for
ten (10) hours at their respective overtime rates of pay."
[BMWE Submission at I]
Findings:
Public Law Board No. 7163, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that (1) the parties
to this dispute are Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as
amended, (2) the Board has jurisdiction over this dispute, and (3) the parties to the dispute were
accorded due notice of the hearing and participated in this proceeding.
This claim was timely presented by the Organization and responded to by the Carrier at all stages
of processing including conference. With the unresolved claim handled in the customary and
usual manner, the record established by the parties is now before the Board for adjudication.
Claimants are regularly assigned to positions on the B&B Service Lane Work Territory Mobile
Gang 6K89 in the Henderson Seniority District for the Nashville Division. The claimed-against
employees are junior to Claimants and are also assigned to positions on a mobile gang in the
B&B Service Lane Territory in the same seniority district and division as Claimants.
On June 6, 2010 the Carrier assigned the claimed-against junior employees to gather material for
a project on the Henderson Bridge to be performed on June 7, 2010. BMWE states that
Claimants were available but not assigned this non-continuous overtime work performed on a rest
day (Sunday, June 6) in preparation for the work to be performed the next day (Monday, June 7).
Prior June 6 Claimants worked on this bridge as part of their regular assignments and on June 5
they were notified to report for work on the bridge beginning June 7.
PLB NO. 7163
AWARD IIa
The Organization states that Rule 17 Section 1(a) extends preference to the senior employee in
the required job class for overtime work performed outside the regular tour of duty whether it is a
continuation or non-continuation with the day's work. Since Claimants are the senior employees
within the required job class and are regularly scheduled for and perform work on the Henderson
Bridge this overtime should have been assigned to them. The claim (June 17, 2010) alleges that
the Carrier's assignment of this overtime work to the junior employees violates Rule 4 -
Seniority, Rule i l - Overtime and Rule 17 - Preference for Overtime Work.
In denying the claim the Carrier states that the junior employees were assigned to and working on
the project at Henderson Bridge as part of their regular duties. The overtime work (June 6)
aligned with their project work and was continuous with the work to be performed the next day
(June 7). They were familiar with the gathered material unlike the Claimants with their
assignments on another part of the Division.
Since the junior employees were performing this project work during their regularly assigned
work period, the Carrier states that overtime was assigned to them in accordance with Rule 17,
Section 2 where "the gang ordinarily doing this type of work during the regularly assigned work
period would be given preference for the continuation of this work outside of the regularly
assigned work period[.]"
The Board must decide which set of service-lane employees (senior Claimants orjunior claimedagainst employees) should have been called for the overtime work.
Claimants perform work on the Henderson Bridge as part of their regular duties and were
effectively assigned to work on the Bridge with the notice on June 5 to report for that work
beginning June 7. As of June 5 the Claimants were no longer assigned to another project on a
different part of the Division but were assigned to the Henderson Bridge. As the senior employees
on the Bridge as of June 5, Claimants should have received preference for the overtime work on
June 6.
Given the circumstances presented by this claim the Board finds that Third Division Award
37317 and Award 56 of PLB 7163 are instructive in the disposition of the claim. That is, Rule 17
Section 1 extends preference for this overtime to Claimants, the senior employees in the required
job class regularly assigned to perform these duties.
When overtime opportunities arise, whether in continuation of the day's work
or not, the senior employee in tile particular job class who ordinarily performs
the work is to be given the preference for the overtime opportunity.
Award:
Claim sustained.
Patrick trick~J. Halter
Neutral Member
PLB No. 7163 Case No. 1 10
PLB NO. 7163
AWARD 110
Carrier Member
Robert A. Paszta
Dated this
ZV'*
day of
T~
, 20
t2-
3
Organization M'er
Peter E. Kennedy