The Board, upon consideration of the entire record and all of the evidence, finds that the parties are Carrier and Employee within the meaning 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.
According to the Organization, on Friday, August 31, 2007, Claimant informed his supervisor, Roadmaster Brown, that he would be available for overtime work on Saturday or Monday, which was Labor Day. It alleges that he told the supervisor to call him at his regular calling number.
On Monday, September 3, 2007, the Carrier called L. Standndge to perform flagging work in conjunction with a contractor engaged in picking up crossties between MP 372.0 and MP 379.8 on the S&NA North Subdivision. It is undisputed that Standridge, who is junior in seniority to Claimant, worked a total of sixteen hours and was compensated for such time at the overtime rate of pay.
The Organization asserts Claimant should have been called for this service as the senior employee who was available for the work and asks that he be compensated for sixteen hours at the overtime rate.
The Carrier denies that Claimant ever informed his supervisor that he would be available for overtime work that weekend or on the holiday. Further, it notes that Standridge had been performing flagging work with the crosstie contractor at the time and asserts he was the appropriate employee to call for the holiday work.
The Board notes that the Organization has not offered any proof, such as a written statement from Claimant, that he had informed Roadmaster Brown that he would be available for work. Similarly, the Carrier has offered no similar proof that Brown was not so notified. These are facts that are fundamental to the resolution of this dispute. In Award No. 39333 of the Third Division, NRAB (Ref. Wallin), the Board wrote:
