NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD
PUBLIC LAW BOARD No. 7163
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way )
Employes Division, IBT Rail Conference )
VS.
) Case No. 115
Award No. 115
CSX Transportation, Inc. )
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim
of
the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
I . The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned junior employe
B. Ramsey, instead
of
Mr. H. Hendrickson, to work overtime making
repairs on a bridge at Mile Post 0OC273.8 at Knoxville, Tennessee on
August 20, 2010 (System File 638757910/2010-081568).
2. As a consequence
of
the violation referred to in Part ( I ) above,
Claimant B. Hendrickson shall now be paid for a total
of
ten (10) hours
at the overtime rate
of
pay."
[BM WE Submission at I]
Findines:
Public Law Board No. 7163, upon the whole record and all the evidence, rinds that (I ) the parties
to this dispute are Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as
amended, (2) the Hoard 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.
Claimant is assigned to the foreman position on Service Lane Territory Mobile Gang 6C83 in the
KD Seniority District for the Appalachian Region. He regularly performs work on bridges within
the District including the bridge at Mile Post OOC273.8. The claimed-against employee - -junior
to Claimant - - is assigned to the foreman position on Service Lane Territory Mobile Gang 60:79
in the same seniority district and division as Claimant.
On August 20, 2010 the Carrier assigned overtime work for repairs on this bridge to the junior
employee. In its claim BMWE states this assignment involves non-continuous overtime because
the work performed on August 20 (the junior employee's rest day) was not a continuation
of
the
work performed on August 19. This separate and distinct overtime assignment is a loss of work
opportunity for Claimant.
The Organization offers Claimant's statement where lie asserts that his gang (6C83) was working
on the bridge "shimming up ties" on August 19 whereas the junior employee's gang (6079) was
PLB NO. 7163
AWARD 115
changing and raising timbers and not changing a stringer. The stringer broke on August 19 and
was replaced on August 20. Claimant asserts that the junior employee called the supervisor to
state that he did not want to work on August 20.
Based on Third Division Award 37317 and Award 56 of PLB 7163 the Organization asserts that
Rule 17 extends preference for this non-continuous overtime to Claimant, the senior employee 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 the particular job class who ordinarily performs the
work is to be given the preference for the overtime opportunity.
Claimant should have been called for this overtime because it was a continuation of the duties he
was performing on this bridge. By not assigning this overtime to Claimant, the Carrier violated
Rule 4 - Seniority, Rule I I - Overtime and Rule 17 - Preference for Overtime Work.
In denying the claim the Carrier states that Rule 17, Section 2 governs this matter. That is,
...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 with the employees in the gang being
called in the order of their seniority in the required job class.
In accordance with Section 2 the Carrier assigned the junior employee because he had
commenced working on the stringer as part of his duties during his regularly assigned work
period (August 19) and that work continued outside of that employee's regularly assigned work
period (August 20).
In support of its position the Carrier relies on Award 15 of PLB 7163 where the Board held that a
mobile gang employee performing work during his regularly assigned work period was properly
preferred for related work outside of the regularly assigned work period over a senior non-mobile
employee. CSXT asserts that BIYIWE fails to establish that Claimant was working on the stringer
on August 19.
As for Claimant's statement the Carrier labels it as self-serving and not logical. For example, the
Claimant asserts the junior employee informed the supervisor he did not want to work on August
20 but the junior employee did work on that date.
Seniority preferences for overtime work opportunities are addressed in Rule 17. Section I
addresses the assignment of overtime work opportunities accruing to non-mobile gangs while
Section 2 addresses the assignment of overtime work opportunities accruing to mobile gangs.
There is no dispute that both the Claimant and the junior employee were assigned to different
mobile gags in the same seniority district and division. Accordingly, Rule 17 Section 2 is the
provision of the Agreement that governs in the overtime work assignment involved in this
dispute.
In this instance, the Board finds that the junior employee was the employee on the mobile gang
regularly assigned to perform the type of work involved here (i.e., changed and raised timbers and
commenced related work involving the stringer during his assigned work period on August 19).
Efforts to complete the related work on August 19 were stymied due to the unavailability of a
stringer until the next day (August 20) which is when the junior employee's mobile gang
PLB NO. 7163
AWARD 115
continued the related work to completion - outside of their regularly assigned work period.
Therefore, the Board finds that the Carrier did not violate the Agreement in the overtime
assignment involved in this dispute.
Award:
Claim denied.
Patrick
f.
Neutral Member
PLB No. 7163 Case No. 115
Carrier Member
Robert A. Paszta
Organization Mei
Peter E. Kennedy
Dated this ~.~ day of y, 20
12-