PUBLIC LAW BOARD NUMBER 3932
Award Number: 12
Case Number: 12
PARTIES TO DISPUTE
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
and
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
"This claim is on behalf of D. Alley, EWE,
for time made by D. Cirone, Welder Helper.
On February 29, 1984, Mr. Cirone was used to
operate the burro crane at Zoo and S. Penn.
Operation of the burro crane is Mr. Alley's
awarded position and he should have been
utilized first on an overtime basis.
Under Rule 55, 56, I am claiming 8 hours at
time and one-half for Mr. Alley."
FINDINGS
By letter dated March
17,
1984, the Organization filed claim
on behalf of Claimant seeking compensation on the grounds that
Carrier violated the Agreement when it allowed another employee
to perform service to which Claimant was entitled on February 29,
1984.
The issue to be decided in this dispute is whether Claimant
was entitled under the Agreement to perform the work at issue on
the date specified.
The Organization contends that Carrier violated Rules 55 and
3q3a
=la
56 of the Agreement when it allowed a Welder's Helper (D. Cirone)
to operate a burro crane on the date in question. The
Organization alleges that the burro crane is customarily operated
by Claimant and that Claimant was entitled under the Agreement to
operate it.
initially, the Organization contends that Carrier was
obligated to use Claimant under Rule 55, since Claimant was the
senior qualified employee entitled to perform overtime on the
burro crane. .,The organization argues that it is uncontested that
Claimant held the position of Burro Crane Operator while Cirone
did not hold that position, and that therefore Rule 55 entitled
Claimant to the work.
The Organization further argues that Carrier violated Rule
56 which states, "An employee will not be required to suspend
work, after starting any daily assigned working period, for the
purpose of absorbing overtime." The Organization alleges that
Carrier suspended Claimant's working period on the date in
question for the purpose of "absorbing overtime". The
Organization further alleges that the normal burro crane operator
on Cirone's shift did not report for work on the date in
question. The Organization contends therefore that Carrier was
obligated to use Claimant to perform burro crane service on
Cirone's shift. The organization asserts that Carrier suspended
Cirone's normal duties in order for him to absorb Claimant's
_2_
PLB 3932 - Award No. 12
overtime, also in violation of Rule 56.
Finally, the organization contends that the compensation
requested is not excessive, since Claimant would have been
utilized on his rest day had Carrier not violated the Agreement.
The position of the Carrier is that the organization has
failed to establish any violation of the Agreement.
Initially, Carrier contends that neither Rule 55 nor Rule 56
is applicable to the claim at hand. Carrier maintains that
Cirone performed his regular tour of duty on the date in
question, and did not perform overtime. Carrier therefore
maintains that Rules 55 and 56, concerning overtime service, are
totally inapplicable under the facts surrounding this claim.
Carrier contends that the rule applicable to this dispute is
Rule 58 which states, "An employee may be temporarily ...assigned
to different classes of work within the range of his ability."
Carrier therefore argues that it was entirely justified in using
Cirone during his regular tour rather than calling Claimant to
perform overtime service. Carrier maintains that the clear
intent of Rule 58 is to allow it to utilize an employee already
on duty rather than call in an employee specifically to work
overtime.
-3-
393a - ~a
Finally, Carrier argues that the claim, if found to be
valid, is nonetheless excessive, since the work in question was
performed at the straight time rate. Carrier argues that there
is therefore no basis for the punitive rate request, particularly
since the Organization has failed to point to any Agreement
provision mandating such payment.
After a review of the record, the Board finds that the
organization's claim must be denied.
The Organization has failed, as per its burden, to establish
that Claimant was entitled to the compensation requested. The
rules cited by the Organization, namely Rules 55 and 56, fail to
establish Claimant's entitlement to perform service on the date
in question. Rule 56 only prohibits Carrier from requiring an
employee to suspend work "after starting any daily assigned
working period..." This is not a case where Carrier forced
Claimant to leave his position and assume duties on another
position in order to prevent work on that position from being
performed on an overtime basis. Claimant had completed his
regular assignment, and it is undisputed that Cirone was
qualified to operate the burro crane. It is further undisputed
that Cirone worked on a straight time basis, and that in fact no
overtime was performed. Therefore, we find that Rule 55 and Rule
56 do not support the claim, since Claimant cannot claim a
-4-
PLB 3932 - Award No. 12
preference for overtime work that was never performed. Finally,
we find that Carrier may utilize a qualified employee on his
regular shift under Rule 58 without penalty. The burro crane
position was admittedly within the "range of his ability" as
required by Rule 58. We find nothing in that rule that would
prohibit the assignment complained of in this case. In sum,
since neither person involved in this case was required to
suspend service to absorb overtime or performed overtime in any
respect, we cannot find that Claimant was entitled to perform the
work in question pursuant to Rules 55 and 56.
BWBBQ
Claim denied.
~LL~e~.~fArLr~c~s-
Neutral Membe
Carrier Member
Or nization Member
DATE:
-5-