AWARD NO. 165
Case No. 165
Organization File No. KeenerC.012 Carrier File No. 2012-128009
PARTIES TO DISPUTE
) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES DIVISION,
) INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
)
)
) CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
The Agreement was violated when the Carrier offered/called junior employes J. Freshour, D. Menter and M. Kimmis to perform overtime rail train (track.man) work on the Albany Service Lane on July 6, 7 and 8, 2012 without calling and assigning such work to senior employe Claimant J. Keener.
As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part 1 above, Claimant J. Keener shall now be compensated for all overtime hours worked by the junior employes on July 6, 7 and 8, 2012.
FINDINGS:
The Board, upon consideration of the entire record and all of the evidence, finds that the parties are Carrier and Employee within the meaning ofthe 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.
In July 2012 Claimant was regularly assigned to a lubricator position on a mobile gang working on the Albany Service Lane. His work week consisted of ten hours a day, Monday through Thursday. On Wednesday, July 4, Claimant was off for the holiday. He elected to take Thursday, July 5, off for Safety Personal Time (SPT), a paid day off granted by the Carrier in recognition of
PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO.7163
AWARD NO. 165
PAGE2
an employee' s safety record. It is undisputed that employees junior to Claimant were called for overtime work on Friday, July 6, Saturday, July 7, and Sunday, July 8. The Organization argues Claimant wasavailable to perform this work on his regularly assigned rest days, and should have had preference over the employees used based upon his greater seniority.
The Carrier does not deny that Claimant would have been called for this work except for the fact that he had taken a paid personal dayon Thursday. This, saysthe Carrier, made him unavailable for work until he returned the following Monday. In support of its position, the Carrier cites Third Division Award 39146, which held:
Preference for overtime assignments is a major benefit of seniority. However, numerous Third Division Awards establish that an employeeon vacation or personal leave is not considered available for overtime until he returns to his regular assignment, and a Carrier is not required to call employees on vacation or personal leave for overtime work. See Third Division Awards 23198, 29092, 29261 and 31790.
While we agree that there is an historical practice of not considering employees on vacation as being eligible for vacation until they return to their regular assignment, we find no support for extending this practice beyond vacationing employees. Except for Award 2926l, which deals only with theexercise of seniority rights, the Awardscited concern only vacations. No Awards have been cited by the Carrier that involve any other days off. All of the Awards cited, as well as the Awards cited therein, refer to historical practices rather than to contractual provisions. We have reviewed the 1941 National Vacation Agreement, as well as the Wayne Morse Awards interpreting it, and find no reference to the issue presented herein. Thus, it was appropriate for the various Referees to rely upon past practice. There is, however, no past practice cited that addresses personal leave days. Furthermore, there is no explanation in Award 39146 as why the Referee would treat personal leave
April 2, 2015