CARRIER NOT OBLIGATED TO LEAVE MESSAGE ON ANWERING MACHINE UNLESS PRIOR ARRANGEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE (141)

Third Division Award No. 30622 (Fletcher)

"On three occasions, June 14, June 15 and August 4, 1991, Carrier placed a phone call to Claimant's residence attempting to call him for overtime work. On each occasion when Claimant's answering machine responded, the Caller hung up without leaving a message and then contacted someone else for the assignment. The Organization has not disputed that the calls were made. Instead it argues that because Claimant utilized the answering machine to screen unwanted calls the Carrier should have left a message so that he could call back and accept the work. Carrier on the other hand states that earlier the Supervisor of Signals had advised that:

'Effective this date when a signal employee is called for overtime and the call is answered by an answering machine the next employee eligible for the overtime will be called. A message may, or may not, be left on the machine. It is my opinion that this will avoid some of the confusion that now exists.'

The Organization is now asking the Board to change the rules and have the Carrier call and if the employee has an answering machine, leave a message and wait for some unspecified time to see if the call is returned.

The Board notes that while answering machines are commonplace today, and answering machines and voice mail are used throughout the industry by all employees and officers officially and unofficially, Carrier is not obligated to leave a message or place a second call when it is calling overtime unless the parties have negotiated such an understanding. No such understanding was in place at the time Claimant was called on June 14, 15 and August 4, 1991. In fact, while this claim was being progressed on the property, the Organization proposed a calling procedure which, if adopted, would eliminate claims such as this."

Third Division Award No. 30628 (Richter)

"There is no dispute as to the facts in this case. On both claim dates the Carrier's caller attempted to reach the Claimant. Both the times the caller got the Claimant's message machine. Claimant admits the phone rang, but she was momentarily unable to reach the telephone. The caller left no message for the Claimant. After failing to reach the Claimant, the caller called another employee to fill the vacancies. Also, there is no dispute that if the Claimant had been reached she was the proper employee to fill the vacancies.

The only dispute before the Board is whether the Carrier made a reasonable effort to reach the Claimant. The Organization contends that the Carrier's caller should have left a message on the answering machine. Had the caller left a message there is no guarantee or any Rule which would require the Claimant to call the Carrier. If the Claimant decided not to work that day all she had to do was ignore the message. The Carrier was required to fill the vacancies. When the caller reached the Claimant's answering machine, it satisfied the requirement of making a reasonable effort to reach the Claimant. The Agreement was not violated."