AWARD NO. 164

Case No. 164

Organization File No. HodomC.O12 Carrier File No. 2012-132632

PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 7163

PARTIES TO DISPUTE

) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES DIVISION,

) INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

)

)

) CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

l. The Agreement was violated when the Carrier offered/called junior employe J. Leverson to perform vehicle operator overtime in connection with transporting employesfor a rail grinding project on the Rochester Sub-Division on September 25 and 26, 2012 without calling and assigning such work to senior employe Claimant

R. Hodom.

1. As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part 1 above, R. Hodom shall now receive 12 hours overtime pay along with all other proper relief.

   
   

   FINDINGS:

   
   

   The Board, upon consideration of the entire record and all of the evidence, finds that the parties areCarrier and Employee within themeaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, that this Board is duly constituted by Agreement dated March 20, 2008, this Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein, and that the parties were given due notice of the hearing held.

   On the dates of claim, Claimant was regularly assigned as a Welder Foreman at Rochester, New York. According to the Organization, J. J. Leverson, who is junior to Claimant, was assigned as a Class"A" Machine Operator, also at Rochester. At this time, the Carrier was using a contractor to operate a rail grinder in this territory. In order to minimize the disruption to train operations, the

   PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 7163

   AWARDNO. 164

   PAGE2

   
   

   rail grinder worked at night. To provide transportation support for the rail grinding operation, the Carrier utilized Leverson and Track Foreman S. Carter to operate vehicles for transporting employ­ ees and material between the hours of 7:00 pm and 7:00 am. These employees were then directed to observe paid rest periods during their regularly assigned hours of 7:00 am to 3:30 pm. In addition to their regular pay, Leverson and Carter were compensated for twenty-four hours at the overtime rate.

   The Organization argues Claimant should have been used to perform this work in lieu of Leverson based upon Claimant,s greaterseniority. Itcites Rule 17 - Preference for Overtime Work, which reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

   Section 1 - Non-mobile gangs:

   
   

   1. When work is to be performed outside the normal tour of duty in continuation of the day's work, the senior employee in the required job class will be given preference for overtime work ordinarily and customarily performed by them. When work is to be per­ formed outside the normal tour of duty that is not a continuation of the day's work, the senior employee in the required job class will be given preference for overtime ordinarily and customarily performed by them.

The Carrier has denied the claim, asserting that Leverson "worked eight hours with the rail grinding team as part of his regularassignment on both dates claimed, and then worked theovertime claimed as a continuation of this work." However, the Carrier has offered no evidence to support its contention that Leverson was regularly assigned to a position in support of the rail grinding operation. The Board notes that the Organization had requested that it be allowed to review relevant management records that would show who was assigned to work with the rail grinder pursuant to Rule 24(i) of the Agreement. Because the Carrier did not provide the requested documentation, the Organization asks the Board to draw an adverse inference against the Carrier. We find that we need

April 2, 2015