PARTIES TO DISPUTE ~',



STATEMENT OF.CLAIM - ''







FINDINGS


assistant welder. Gang 5C61 is headquartered at Corbin,, Kentucky and i-

 assigned to work building switch points and frogs between Corbin and

Barboursville, Kentucky.
During the period in question, the yard at Corbin was in the process of '
 expansion. For the specific purpose of facilitating that expansion, Welding .'i

 Gang 5C55 was established. 5C55 was composed of Welder C. L. Farris and

 Welder's helper G. M. Taylor.
 Both welding gangs worked Monday to Friday with Saturday and Sunday

 rest days. However, on two Saturdays, December 21~and 28, 1985; tw< holidays, December 2,4 and 25, 1985; and Monday, January 13,~1986, Carrier needed certain work performed in connection with the Corbin yard;
 expansion..~The work was the same work performed during the Work week by, Farris and Taylor, who; on those-dates in,question, performed it on·aan '.'

 overtime basis. On the occasions in question, Claimants~were not unassigned -

 or extra and did

 not . perform the work.

 Rules 30(b), (f) and (g) provide:

 30(b) Employes, who desire to be considered for calls under Rule
 31, will provide the means by which they may be contacted by
 telephone or otherwise, and will register their telephone number
 with their foreman or immediate supervisory officer. Of those so
 registered, calls will be made in seniority order as the need
 arises.

 A reasonable effort must be made to contact the senior employe so registered, before proceeding to the next employe on the register. Except for section men living within hailing distance of either their foreman's diving quarters or their tool house or headquarters station, and for meq,living in camp, cars when they are present at the camp cars,-ait'employe not registered as above shall not have any claim on account.of not being worked on calls.

 f0(f) The seni,or·available men shall be given preference in the assignment of overtime work on their home sections.

 30(g) Where work is required by the carrier to be, performed on a day which is not a .part of any assignment, it may be performed,by an available extra or unassigned employe who will otherwise not have 40~hours.:of',work that week; in all other,'cases by the regular employ. A :1
 w-113g-`z= ( . _

        ' The issue to be decided in this dispute is whether the Carrier violated,


                                                              r,

      the Agreement by not calling Claimants to perform the welding work on the days in question; and if so, what should the remedy be.


        The position of the Organization is that the Carrier violated Rule 30 '-

      by not assigning the Corbin yard overtime work to Claimants., The Organiza

      tion contends'that Claimants were senior to Farris and Taylor and should

                    ,t. t t ,


      have been called for the overtime work under the provisions of Rule 30 (b) and (f). The Organization agrees,with the Carrier that the intent of Rule 30(f) is "th4C employees will have' preference to work on an overtime basis t . i that is of the nature'and in the area of their regular Assignment." The


      Organizatibn~coiitena's :that the;,welding work performed by~Farris.and Taylor " t, ' ;i',

      is ,of the.,'~n#urb`bortiially per'fosmed by Claimants,and_tliey, therefore, ', .,1- 't

      ~, .· ." t., '·.I

      should have been called to do it. Since they were not, the Carrier is in

      violation of the Agreement. ;, ; '~


        The position of the Carrier is that it did not violate the Agreement. ",


      The Carrier contends that Rule 30(g) is controlling in this matter. ,It - ,,

                                                            ~- i


      maintains that the welding work, in'question was not-~he't~ort for which .

      employes had to be "called," since it was planned work that was simply a ,

      continuation of the work performed during the week by,Farris and Taylor. i.'~:~


                                                            "_ t .,. , t

      According to Rule 30(g); this work must go first to.extta or unassigned welders (which Claimants were not) and then to the "regular einploye." The Carrier maintains that that is exactly what it did.


                                                            i.

After ,review of the entire record, the Board finds. that the CaFrierldid,~

 not violate the Agreement.

 The organization has not sustained its burden of proving that Claimants were entitled to the overtime assignment and were wrongly denied it. Rather, the Carrier has shown that Farris and Taylor were regularly assigned .

 to perform the same work during the week, work related to the yard expan=

 sion, as they performed on overtime on the dates in question. The work in the yard was required by the Carrier under its managerial. prerogative to be performed on a day "which is not part of any assignment" -- both Claimants and Farris and Taylor had Saturday and Sunday rest days. Neither Claimant was unassigned or extra. Therefora,~undei the provisions of Rule 30(g), Farris and Taylor, as,"the "regular'employe[sJ," were properly assigned the .

 work.

 AWARD
          Claim's t)epied;~'v 'i.


i

p4v, a,


Neutral Member

 .,.a i,. ~~C~? ce 1

 Carrier Member

 Organ zation tember

 . i,