AWARD NO. 18
Case No. 18
Organization File No. DM-2109-PL-002 PLR Carr ier File No.
PAR T I ES TO
DISP UT E
) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES DIVIS1ON
)
)
)
) PADUCAH & LOU ISYlLL E RAILWAY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
I. The Carrier violated the Agreement when. on Jul y 31 , August 2 and 15, 2021 , it assigned Mobile Machine Operator L. Flener to perform overtime service consisting of providing Maintenance of Way flagging at Mile Post 200 .5 on the Princeton. Kentu cky Territory at the exclusion of senior, regularly assigned. Class V, Foreman J. Prince (System File DM-2109- PL- 002 PLR).
2. As a consequence of the violat ion referred to in Part I above , Clai mant J. Prince shall now be compensated all overtime worked by L. Flener plus any differential pay and per diem.
FINDINGS:
The Board, upon consideration of the entire record and all of the evide nce, finds that the parties are Carrier and Emp loyee within the meani ng of the Rail way Labor Act , as amended , that this Board is duly constituted by Agreement elated December 1 6, 201 0, this Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein, and that the par ti es were given due notice of the hearing held.
On July 31 and August 15, 2021 , both Saturdays , the Carrier utilized Machine Operator L. Flener to perform flagging work on his rest day. He was compensated at the overtime rate for service performed on those days. The Carrier has denied he worked on August 2. 202 1 , and the Organization has not met its burden of proving otherwise.
PU BLI C LAW B O ARD NO. 7460
A WARD N o. 18
P1\GE 2
The Organization contends Claimant should have been used for this work inasmuch as he holds seni ority as a Foreman, and Machine Operator Flener does not. The Carrier argues it was proper to call Flener for this \vork as he is senior to Clai man t.
Rule 9(c) of the Agreement dictates that --overtime on a territ ory shall go to the regular assigned emplo yees Oil such territor y Oil a sen iori ty basis." We have been referred to no provision of the partie s' Agreement that either reserves or gives preference to flagging work to Foremen . Although the Organization argues there is a past practice of assigning such work to Foremen, the Carrier denies it has done so on an exclusive basis. In the absence of a Rule reserving such work to Foremen. the Organization bears the burden of provi ng a long-standing past practice. We find it has not met that burden of proof. Accordin gl y. we cannot find that the Agreement was violated.
AWARD: Claim denied.
A-o-h-n-S-- =--«e-
Employee Member
_b-_ t.J-1_:_
Rodney Goodwin Carrier Member
Dated: I 2- f gI
/ Z..oz.'-\
Arlington He ights, Illin ois