BEFORE PUBLIC LAW BOA NO. 7007
BROTHERHOOD OF MADTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
and
MASSACHUSETTS BAY COMMUTER RAILROAD
Case No. 3'T
STATEMENT OF CAM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
1. The her violated the current Agreement, specifically Rule I1-- Overtime and
the "Overtime Protocol" when it failed to properly assign overtime on the claim
dates to the Claimant, David Haskins.
2. For this violation the Organization is requesting that the her be required to
compensate Claimant Haskins $ hours at his B&B Foreman's overtime rate of
pay for the Carrier's failure to call the proper person in violation of the Rules
The Organization filed the instant claim an behalf of the Claimant, alleging that
the Carrier violated the parties' Agreement and the Overtime Protocol when it assigned
certain overtime work to a B&B Mechanic, rather than to the Claimant, a B&F Foreman.
The Carrier denied the claim.
The Organization contends that the instant claim should be sustained in its entirety
because the cited rules require that the work at issue be assigned to a Foreman, the
Claimant, who was available to perform the work; because a B&B Mechanic is not
supposed to perform solo work, but is to take direction from a Foreman; and because the
Carrier has not re-created and advertised any positions in the Sign Shop, despite many
requests from the Claimant and from the Organization. The Carrier contends that the
instant claim should be denied in its entirety because the Organization has failed to meet
s
its burden of establishing the essential elements of the claim; because there is no
probative evidence showing that the Carrier violated any provision of the parties'
Agreement; because the work was assigned in accordance with the Agreement
requirements; and because there has been no showing that the Claimant is qualified to
perform the overtime work in question or that such work is required to be performed by a
Foreman.
The parties being unable to resolve their dispute, this matter carne before this
Board.
This Board has reviewed the record in this case, and we find that the Oration
has failed to meet its burden of proof that the Carrier violated the agreement when it
failed to assign the overtime in question to the Claimant, David Haskins.
The relevant language in this case appears in Rule 11, Sections 4(a) and 4(b).
That language states:
4. When necessary to work employees under this Rule, the senior available
qualified employees will be called according to the following:
(a) Preference to overtime work on a regular work day which precedes or
follows and is continuous with a regular assignment shall be to the
senior available qualified employee of the gang or the employee
assigned to that work.
(b) Preference to overtime work other than in (a.) above, shall be to the
senior qualified employee at the headquarters who ordinarily and
customarily performs such work.
The
Organization has failed to show that the Claimant is qualified to use the
machines in the Sign Shop. Moreover, he was not the senior available qualified
2
The Organization contends that the her is required to hire a foreman for the
overtime. There is no language in the agreement that requires that. The her only is
required to call the senior available qualified employee either at the headquarters or who
ordinarily and customarily performs the work as set forth in. the above-cited paragraphs.
The Organization has failed to meet its burden of proof in this case. Therefore, the
claim must be denied.
CARRIER Mp'.MBER
DATED: t t
f
I '?
1E
t
3
NeutrW'12~
o
~~oN MENsER
DATED:
"'f',/f/V
