PUBLIC LAW BOARD 5564
CaseNo.. 47
Award No. 47
Inthe Matter of Arbitration between:
BROTHERHOOD .OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES DIVISION - IBT IUILCONFERENCE
and
Inthe Matter of Arbitration between:
BROTHERHOOD .OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES DIVISION - IBT IUILCONFERENCE
and
This Decision res,olves the Organ ation's «:rla.im as follows:
The Carrier violated the Agreement onMarch 7. 8,9 10 and 11, 2011
when it assigned junior employes J. Salazar, J. Johnston, H. Fallad,
J. Jauregui. E. Andrade, Jr. and J. Guerrero to perform overtime service inconnection with platform construction work at3511 Street on the Rock IslandDfstrictinstead of senior employes. K. Kots, D.Butler,
G. Ponce, K. Raineya{'ldl, Cornejo(SystemFileC110501/08-21-613 NRC).
As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part 1 above, Claimants K Kats, D. Butler, G.Ponce, K Rainey and I. Cornejo shall each be compensated for ten (10) overtime hours at their respective rates of pay.
Based onthe record developed b.y fheOrganizationand the Carrier, this Public law Board (Board) finds the Parties herein to bE? $ Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Boardhas jurisdictron over the Parties and the dispute.
This dispute isbetween the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way EmptoyeS: Division
- fBT Raif Conference (BMWE or Organization} and the Northeast Illinois Regional
PLB5564
Case No. 47 Award No.47
Commuter Railroad Corporatton (Metra or Carrier) {collectively the Parties), rhe dispute arises out of BMWE's claim that Metra violated the Parties' Agreement Rules 1, 2. and 3 in the assignment of overtime at the 35111 Street Station project {35111 Street).
The facts and on property handling of BMWE's claim are foJlovvs:
The facts are notdisputed. The application of the Agreement Rules to thefacts are
disputed.
The Claimants inelude: K Kots. D. R. Butler, G. E. Ponce.KW. Ra1ney and I. Cornejo.. These employees compose what BMWE asserts is the Senio.r Gang headquartered at Blue Island (12'71hStreet).. Otherinvolved employees include: J. sarazar,
J. Johnson, H. F'allad, J. Jose Jaurequi, E. Edwardo Amdreade, Jr. And J. Guerrero.
These employees compo'Sewhat BMWE asserts isthe JuniorGangheadquartered at 47th Street which wasestablished after theClaimants' Gang. Both Capital.Gangs areassigned to the Rock Island District. The dispute invofves Metra's work assignments of these. two Capital Gangs at 35m Street.
Both Capital Gangs worked planned overtime on the weekend of March. 6 and 6.; 2011 at 35t11 Street From March 7 through 11, 2011, theSenior Gang was assigned work on the 80th Avenue Station platform project (Salli Avenue) Whil13 the Junior Gang contintJed to work on 35th: Street
On May 3. 2011, BMWE submitted a claim asserting that the CarrteralJowedthe Junior Gang to work ptanned overtime 2 hours per day, from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p,m. in violationof the Agreement Rul.es 1, 2 and 3 because the overtime work should havebeen offered to the Senior Gang.
On June 6, 2011* Metra denied the ctaim responding that "the capital ga:ng working their regular hours during the week are [sic] entitled to any overtime, during the week."
BMWE appealed the ataim denial asserting that pursuant to Rufe 18(k) and Appendix 0 1 Section 18, since both Gangs were assigned to the Rock Island District, then the Agreementseniorityrules require that the S.eniorGang be assigned the overtirnework.
PLB5564
Case No.47
Award No,47
On August 1o.2011, Metra denied the claim appeal again asserting that thereisno Agreement language giving the Claimants, or their Capital Gang,. preference to work on a specific project. Moreover, Me-tra asserted that Gangs do have seniority based 011when the Gang was established. Metra argued that the employees assigned to the 35ffi Street project, the Junior Gang, clearly had preference for overtime on that project, just as the
Claimants, the Senior Gang, had preference for overtime on their project. Metra also argued that the Agreement does not provide ijlat employees working on a proje:et must step aside to surrender the overtime work to a Gang working on a different project
On March 2, 2012. the elaim was conferenced without resolution and BMWE progressed the claim for resolution before this Board.
The Agreement Rules provide. in material part, as follows:
RULE 18. OVERTIME.
* *
(k) When overtime service is required of part of a gang continuous with, before, or after the regular work period, the senior avaffable qualified employees in therank involved shallhavepreference tosuch overtime if they so desire.
* *
Corporation and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
In the application of Rule 17. Call Rule and Rule 18. Overtime of the April 16, 1984 General Rules Agreement, as amended,, the following procedures will govern the assignment of overtime, whether planned or emergency.
* .,
PLB5564
Case No. 47
Award No. 47
Section t8i All capital project overtime is performed by the·· regularly assigned Capital Gang. Maintenance persons assisting aCapital Gang are called first from the territory in which the Capital Gang is working, Then, depending onthe subdepartment; thesameproceduresou.ffinedinitems one through fourteen are followed.
The Board finds that certain undisputed facts are impertaRt to the analysis of the ciaim. First, thEt. facts establish that the employee$ working al 35t11 Street from March 7 through 11" 2011, which BMWE calls the Junior Gang were assigned overtime as a
continuation of their regular day.of work. Next, it is also an undisputed fact that the
Claimants' Gang, which BMWE cans the senior Gang, Wa$ working atanother location, 80th AvE:lnue. Finally_. the undisputed. facts establiih that no Capital Gang was regularly assigned to 35th Street within the meaning of Appendix 0, Section 18. Based on these simple facts, the Board finds that, Appendix 0, Sectmn 18is not applicable to thespecific, uniqUE!I facts of tht overtime assignment from March 7 through 11, 2011 on 35tt1 Street.
The plain and express language of Rule 18 gives preference. for overtime service, continuous with, that is before or after the regular work period, to the senior available qualified employees, if they so desire. Thiscleat Agreement language does not define or
establish seniority by Gangs1 butonly by individual employee, For this reason, the Boiud
finds that Rule 18 iS not applicable to the specific, unique facts ofthe overtime assignment from March 7 through 11, 2011 on 351n Street as well.
The Board concludes that since no Agreement Rule constrains Metra1sassignment of continuous overtime to the Gang worfdng from March 7 through 11, 2:011 on the 351tr Street project, then BMWE's claimmust bedenied.
Th& claim is denied.
PLB5564
caseNo.47
AwardNo.47
For the Organization;
id .
Publlc law Board Advocate BMWIS,..IBT .
' .
Nemral Membet:
SleanRogers. Esq.
Sean J. Rogers & Associates, LLC Leonardtewn, Maryland· December21, 2016