LAW SqA,RD NCI. 7I)Ofi
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
and
MASSACHUSETTS BAY COMMUTER RARROAD
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
1. The Carrier violated the current Agreement, specifically Rode 11- Overtime and
the "Overtime Protocol" when it failed to properly assign overtime on the claim
dates to the Claimant, C. O'Brien.
2. Far this violation the Organization is requesting that the Carrier be required to
compensate Claimant C. O'Brien 12 hours at his l3&B Mechanic's overtime rate
of pay due to a junior employee and B&B Mechanic, M. Tolson working a
position in violation of the Rules cited"
The Organization filed the instant claim an behalf of the Claimant, alleging that
the Carrier violated the parties' Agreement when it assigned certain overtime work to a
junior employee, rather than to the Claimant. The Carrier denied the claim.
The Organization contends that the instant claim should be sustained in its entirety
because the Rules require the Carrier to assign the overtime work to a B&B Mechanic,
the Claimant, who was qualified and available to perform the work; because the Carrier
ignored the conversations between the parties regarding how overtime should be handled
with regard to a specific crew established to repair bridges and culverts on the North
Side; and because the Carrier should be held accountable for creating its own practice
while ignoring the Rules anal any past practice. The Carrier contends that the instant
claim should be denied in its entirety because the overtime work was properly assigned to
a Bridge Crew mechanic because this work was in that crew's section of responsibility,
because the Carrier followed proper procedures and the Claimant was not entitled to the
overtime, and because the Organization has failed to meet its burden of showing that the
Claimant was the senior available and qualified employee and that the Carrier was in
breach of the Agreement.
The parties being unable to resolve their dispute, this matter came before this
Board.
This Board has reviewed the record in this case, and we find that the Organization
has failed to meet its burden of proof that the Carrier violated the Agreement when it
called in Mr. Tolson to perform overtime work instead of the Claimant. Therefore, the
claim must be denied.
The record reveals that a bridge crew was established to work on the North Side
on a culvert in Fitchburg. The work description of that crew was "all repair and
replacement of culverts and stationary bridges on the North Side as their territory." Mr.
Tolson was a bridge crew mechanic at the time. The Carrier called in the bridge crew
first for the culvert work because it was in their section.
Rule 11(4) states, in part:
4. 'lien necessary to work, employees under this Rule, the senior
available qualified employee 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 available qualified employee at the headquarters who ordinarily
2
and customarily performs such work.
Since the Oration has failed to meet its burden of proof in this case, the claim
must be denied.
AWWARD:
_ _ claim is denied.
P MEYERS
eutral Member
CARRIER MEM$ER ORGAZA UR MEMBER
DATED: ( t
J1 -7 / 1
t DATED:-0/-FO/
3