Award No. 5136 Docket No. 4979 2-C&O-CM-'67 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD SECOND DIVISION The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in PARTIES TO DISPUTE: SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 41, RAILWAY EMPLOYES' THE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: 1. That under the current agreement, Carman J. E. Christian was unjustly dealt with and his service rights violated when he was not given the privilege of working overtime in compliance with Rule 11 of the Shop Crafts Agreement. 2. That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to compensate Carman Christian eight (8) hours at the carman applicable time and one-half (1%) rate for September 4, 1964. EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Carman J. E. Christian, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, is employed as such, by the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, hereinafter referred to as the carrier, in its yards at Russell, Kentucky as a car inspector on the second shift, with a work week Thursday through Monday, rest days Tuesday and Wednesday. The carrier's Russell Yards is a large yard where trains are made up, switched and cars are repaired. On September 3, 1964 Carman W. T. Sammons was first out on the overtime board, was called and refused said call. Carman H. Vanderhoof Sr., was second out and could not be reached by telephone. Carman H. Gambill third out, called and accepted, leaving the claimant first out. On September 4, 1964 it was necessary to call one man from the carmen's overtime board and the claimant who was first out, his name was ignored. Carman Sammons was called again for the first shift in violation of rule 11 of the shop crafts agreement. This was called to the attention of the carrier's General Car Foreman, Perkins and he agreed to take corrective measures but failed to do so. After calling to the attention of the carrier's general car foreman several times the numerous violations of the carrier's foreman, Wike failing to call men in proper turn and also failing to keep accurate record of men called. When no corrective measures were taken, left the employes no other alternative only to file grievance in order to have these conditions corrected to which the carrier declined. This dispute was handled on the property in accordance with the agreement, with all carrier officers authorized to handle grievances, all of whom declined to adjust it. A copy of Local Chairman Watkins' letter of September 24, 1964, directed to the General Foreman. A copy of my appeal letter to Mr. Cridlin dated December 3, 1964, is attached. The agreement effective July 2, 1921 as subsequently amended is controlling. POSITION OF EMPLOYES: Rule 11 of the shop crafts agreement provides in part: "(3) There will be an overtime call list (or call board) established for the respective crafts or classes at the various shops or in the various departments or sub-departments, as may be agreed upon locally to meet service requirements, preferably by employes who volunteer for overtime service. Overtime call board will be kept under lock and key available to view of employes. Overtime call list will be kept under lock and key and made available to employes when necessary. (4) There will be, as near as possible, an equal distribution of overtime between employes who voluntarily sign the overtime call lists." It is submitted that the carrier violated the controlling agreement when they refused to consider the overtime board or rule 11 of the shop crafts agreement as quoted herein above. In compliance with the above quoted Rule a local overtime board was established at the carrier's Russell Yards, said board was established for the purpose of equalizing the overtime among the employes. On September 3, 1964 Carman Sammons was first out on said Board, was called for the third shift and refused said call. Carman Vanderhoof was second out but could not be reached by telephone. Carman Gambill was third out, was called and responded to said call, leaving the claimant first out. Carman Sammons was again called by the Carrier's Foreman Wike on September 4, 1964 at 6:12 A. M. for the first shift. In handling this claim on the property the carrier has not denied these facts, but stated, rule 11 provides for an equalizing overtime board and the employes equalize the board every fifteen days. While it is true, rule 11 provided for an equalizing overtime board and the employes tries to keep the board in order but, the board is not equalized every fifteen days as alleged by the carrier. After discussing this matter on different occasions with the carrier's general car foreman and master mechanic, and no corrective measures have been taken which makes it very difficult for employes to keep the overtime board properly adjusted and almost impossible to equalize the overtime. The carrier is placing unnecessary burden on the employes by not calling in proper turn or keeping accurate records. The carrier did not deny that the violation were committed but stated, the employes should adjust the overtime board in order the claimant could be made whole for the damage incurred by the carrier's supervisors. It would only be reasonable to believe that if the claimant was denied the privilege to work on September 4, 1964, when he was first out on the overtime board, the carrier would ignore his turn regardless where his name would be placed on the board, as was done in the instant case. The carrier alleged the employes should adjust said board to equalize the overtime, which would be impossible unless the carrier would take corrective measures in seeing the employes are called in proper turn as their names appear on the board. It is submitted that the carrier violated the controlling agreement, when they refused to consider the overtime board or rule 11 of the shop crafts agreement as quoted herein above. The foregoing makes it abundantly clear that the claimant was damaged and the current agreement was violated when he was denied the privilege of working overtime in compliance with rule 11 and the claimant is entitled to be made whole for said damage. The foregoing abundantly supports the employes' claim and we respectfully request the honorable members of this division to so find. CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: At its terminal in Russell, Kentucky, the Carrier operates a large Classification Yard where both manifest freight cars and coal cars are classified. Two so-called "humps" are operated for this purpose, one being used primarily for classification of coal loads and the other for manifest freight. Carman are assigned at Russell Terminal around the clock to perform the work of the craft. All of the carmen are carried on a single seniority roster and are assigned to work on the Transportation Yard (work in connection with inspection and dispatching of trains), Shop track (work in connection with maintenance and repair of cars), or the Roundhouse (certain work on locomotives which is recognized as belonging to the carman craft). The instant dispute involved the transportation yard and shop track carmen only, as the small force of carmen at the roundhouse works independently of the others and the men assigned there are carried on a separate overtime board. For many years at Russell Terminal an equalizing overtime board has been in operation, common to both the transportation yard and shop track men. This means that carmen who have indicated their desire to be considered for overtime work are used in a manner so that all on the overtime list will be offered approximately the same amount of overtime work over a period of time. Of course, in an equalizing arrangement no employe is assured of being called for a particular job on an overtime basis simply because of his accumulation of overtime hours at a particular time. If for one of several reasons the man who is not lowest in overtime hours is used for overtime work on a certain day, the man lowest in overtime hours has not suffered loss. The opportunity will be given to the lowest man to equalize his overtime over a period of time under rule 11, the applicable provisions reading as follows: "(c) Record will be kept of overtime worked and men called with the purpose in view of distributing the overtime equally. (4) There will be, as near as possible, an equal distribution of overtime between employes who voluntarily sign the overtime call lists. (9) An employe refusing call in his turn will lose the turn the same as if he had responded. An employe called for work for which he is not qualified, will retain his place on the call board or list." The mechanics of the overtime board are these: Adjacent to the foreman's desk and exposed to viewing through glass is a vertical rack containing a block for each man on the overtime board. The blocks with the names of such men have been arranged according to the order desired by the local chairman of the brotherhood or his representative (s), their intent being to distribute the overtime as equally as possible insofar as the carrier has observed. Carrier's supervision does not have access to the blocks as the employes alone have the key to this rack. When men are to be called out for overtime work, the foreman consults the overtime board and telephones those whose names appear on the blocks at the bottom of the rack. For overtime purposes, no distinction is made between shop track and transportation yard work. As each man is called in succession, the foreman records on a special form or call sheet, each man's name, the time called, whether accepted or rejected, etc. Each day a copy of the form is given to the local chairman or his representative, who unlocks the overtime board and moves the blocks of those who have been called the previous 24-hour period, to the top of the rack. The procedure described above is then repeated the next 24-hour period, and so forth. Every fifteen days the master mechanic's office at Russell checks all time cards and records by name, date and amount the overtime worked by all carmen at that point the previous 15 days. A copy of this statement is furnished to the local chairman. Based upon this information plus the daily reports of overtime work refused and missed, the local chairman adjusts the blocks for equalization purposes. Stated differently, the local chairman rearranges the order of the blocks so that those low in overtime hours will be at the bottom of the rack at the beginning of the period. With this explanation it is apparent that the primary responsibility for equalizing the overtime of the men on the overtime board rests with the employes. They alone have a key to the overtime board. They alone control how the overtime board is to be adjusted for equalizing purposes. It naturally follows that a carman who may be persistently low in overtime hours should look for relief to his local committee and not the carrier. W. T. Sammons was regularly assigned as carman at Russell and was one who had indicated his desire to be called for overtime work. He was called for an overtime vacancy to begin work at 11:00 P. M. on September 3, 1964, but as he did not desire to come out on third shift, he refused the work and the next man was called. The refused work was properly shown on the call sheet, but the foreman on duty the following morning called him for a first shift vacancy on September 4, 1964. Same accepted and was used. It is claimed by the employes that the agreement was violated when Sammons instead of Claimant J. E. Christian was used to work overtime on first shift, September 4, 1964, under the provisions of rule 11 quoted above. Although Christian would have been asked to work overtime on September 4, 1964 if Sammons had not been used, carrier denies that any violation of the above quoted rules occurred or that Christian suffered loss as a result of the incident described above. Agreement between the carrier and employes of the six shop crafts, System Federation No. 41, AFL-CIO, is hereby made a part of this submission by reference. POSITION OF CARRIER: It is the carrier's position the usage of Sammons instead of Christian to work overtime on September 4, 1964, was not in violation of any rule in the agreement. This is true because the carmen at the Russell Shop Track are called out for overtime work from an equalizing overtime board, and no employe is entitled to any particular overtime work because of his standing on the board, nor does any employe suffer loss which cannot be recovered simply because some other employe or employes may or may not perform certain overtime work at a certain time. It is inherent in the nature of an equalizing system that overtime will be approximately equalized, as near as possible, over a period of time if the board is adjusted for this purpose. On any one day there may be wide variations in the amount of overtime hours charged to those who have volunteered for overtime service, but, by the same token, those low in overtime hours are given opportunity to make up their deficits in the future. What the employes seek in this case is to fragmentize overtime work and superimpose strict rotation or first-in, first-out principles on an equalizing system, which is entirely incompatible. In a rotary system, the employes to be used for overtime work are listed in strict order, "A" standing first out, "B" second out, and "C" third out. Assuming that qualifications are not a factor, "A" must be called first, "B" second and "C" third. There is no latitude permitted. If, through error, "B" is called when "A" should have been called, this service is lost to "A" as the order on the overtime list remains "A", "B" and "C". In a situation such as this "A" has suffered a loss which will not be recouped at a future time. The same does not hold true when an equalizing system is in use. Using the same designations as above, it is possible that "B" or "C" would for some reason or another have been used one or several times more than “A” is used. Perhaps “B” has accumulated 24 overtime hours and "C" 30 hours at some particular time whereas "A" has worked only 8 hours overtime. This does not mean that "A" has |