SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 7, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. OF L. (CARMEN)
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: 1. Claim of Andrew Walker, Ralf Thorp, Van Woolery, P. H. Steiling, D. E. Lowe, J. F. Dillman and M. H. Telford, employed in Auburn, Washington, Car Department, that they were improperly compensated under rules of the current agreement, and particularly Rule 11 thereof, and for additional payment while engaged in wrecking service at Cle Elum, Washington, from November 20 to December 4, 194`:, inclusive.
JOINT STATEMENT OF FACTS: On November 20, 1942, the Auburn wrecking crew was called for service at 2 :00 A. M. on account of the derailment of a passenger train near Cle Elum, Washington, arriving at the scene of the derailment at 7:30 A. M. same date. They completed the work of clearing the wreck at 7:30 P. M. on December 4, and departed for Auburn, their home station, at 8:00 A. M., December 5, arriving there at 5:20 P. M. They were relieved from duty by the carrier each day, November 20 to December 4, inclusive, during hours other than those between 10:00 P. M. and 6:00 A. M., and were not paid for such time.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: Rule 11 of the current agreement reads as follows:
this time. Rule 11 does not sustain this contention which is obviously contrary to the intent of the rule as written and as interpreted by the employes themselves and by this Division in Award 154.
In presenting this claim the employes seek to secure a guarantee of sixteen hours pay per day by contending that the rest period may not exceed eight hours per day between the hours of 10:00 P. M. and 6:00 A. M. To accomplish this result they have ignored two, specific provisions of Rule 11, viz., that contained in the first paragraph which provides that the employe will be paid for all time worked in accordance with practice at home station which is a guarantee that the employe will receive no less for working at away from home point than he would have received for working at home station; and secondly they. have ignored the specific guarantee provision of the second paragraph of Rule 11 which provides that in no case shall the employe be paid for a total of less than eight hours each calendar day when the emergency service prevents the employe from making his regular hours at home station.
It is perfectly plain that if Rule 11 contemplated a guarantee of sixteen hours, as the employes now contend, the rule would have so stated and wouid not specify a guarantee of eight hours as the rule reads.
The guarantee clause of the second paragraph of Rule 11 is a part of the same sentence that provides for the period during which an employe is permitted to go to bed. This plainly shows that there was no question in the minds of the parties who negotiated the rule that a guarantee of eight hours as specifically stated and nothing else was intended. To give the rule the effect the employes now contend for it will be necessary to change the language of Rule 11 which is something this Board has no authority to do.
This claim is not sustained by the plain language of Rule 11 or by the generally accepted interpretation and application of the rule during the time it has been in existence, and the claim should therefore be denied.
FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
Rule 11 provides that the relief period for first shift employes shall be between the hours of 10:00 P. M. and 6:00 A. M., and for those employed on other than first shift, rest shall be during the employes' normal rest period.
Without passing upon the question of what is the normal rest period of the second and third shift employes, the Division holds that for the first shift employes involved the claim should be sustained.