SYSTEM FEDERATION No. 99, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. OF L. (MACHINISTS)
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: That the employes named below are each entitled to be additionally compensated at their straight time rate for the hours specified after their names, by virtue of having been in service at the end of the week on each date identified in the period between January 22 and June 4, 1945-
1 Arthur L. Tragnitz, machinist, Saturday, January 27 ; Saturday, February 3, 10 and 17 ; Saturday, March 3, 10, 17, 24 and 31; Saturday, April 7, 14, 21 and 28; Saturday, May 5, 12, 19 and 26, and Saturday, June 2, 1945, a total of 19 hours at the rate of $.79 per hour.
2-P. W. Johnson, machinist, Saturday, January 27; Saturday, February 3, 10, 17 and 24 ; Saturday, March 3, 10, 17, 24 and 31; Saturday, April 7, 14, 21 and 28; Saturday, May 5, 12, 19 and 26; and Saturday, June 2, 1945, a total of 19 hours at the rate of $1.04 per hour.
3-Paul Tribbett, machinist, Saturday, January 27; Saturday, February 3, 10, 17 and 24 ; Saturday, March 3, 10, 17, 24 and 31; Saturday, April 7, 14, 21 and 28; Saturday, May 5, 12, 19 and 26; and Saturday, June 2, 1945, a total of 19 hours at the rate of $1.04 per hour.
4-Leo C. Kilcoyne, machinist, Saturday, January 27; Saturday, February 3, 10, 17 and 24 ; Saturday, March 3, 10, 17, 24 and 31; Saturday, April 7, 14, 21 and 28 ; Saturday, May 5, 12, 19 and 26 ; and Saturday, June 2, 1945, a total of 19 hours at the rate of $1.04 per hour.
5-Nandor J. Zsetenyi, machinist helper, Saturday, January 27; Saturday, February 3, 10, 17 and 24 ; Saturday, March 3, 10, 17, 24 and 31; Saturday, April 7, 14, 21 and 28; Saturday, May 5, 12, 19 and 26; and June 2, 1945, a total of 19 hours at the rate of $.79 per hour.
6-John Buckley, machinist helper, Saturday, January 27 ; Saturday, February 3, 10, 17 and 24; Saturday, March 3, 10, 17, 24 and 31; Saturday, April 7, 14, 21 and 28 ; Saturday, May 5, 12, 19 and 26 ; and Saturday, June 2, 1945, a total of 19 hours at the rate of $.79 per hour.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The employes listed above, hereinafter referred to as the claimants, were regularly employed by the carrier during the period of January 22 to June 4, 1945, at the Markham shop, Chicago, Illinois.
Evidentiary of the fact the employes are and have been aware of the practice is the following quoted from General Chairman Hunter's letter of May 19, 1945:
The carrier maintains that the complained of interpretation has been established as controlling by long practice which has been acknowledged by the employes and that, therefore, there is no dispute that this Board may decide.
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.
The parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Rule 57 is unambiguous and provides for the payment of the so-called "grace hour" when employes are required to check in and out on their own time.
The fact that there had been exceptions made as to the application of this rule does not change its meaning.
There is a question of fact as to the employes mentioned in the dispute having been required to check in and out on their own time, which should have been resolved on the property.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
Upon the application of a representative of the employes involved in the above award, that this Division interpret the same in the light of the dispute between the parties as to its meaning, as provided for in Sec. 3, First (m) of the Railway Labor Act, approved June 21, 1934, the following interpretation is made:
QUESTION FOR INTERPRETATION: Was it the intent of the Findings in. Docket 1096 (Award No. 1170), reading:
identified as Award No. 1170, to have parties resolve the facts through a jointly conducted investigation, if necessary, in order to settle the dispute on the basis of the facts developed?
(The Division has discovered that there was an error made in transcribing a paragraph of our findings in the Advance copy sent out That part of the last paragraph of the findings reading: "* * * which should have been resolved on the property." should have read: "* * * which should be resolved on the property." This correction is here and now made.)
As stated in the findings, there was a question of fact, not developed in the submission, to the point where the Division could reach a definite decision, resulting in our finding that these facts "should be developed an the property," (as herein corrected).
We, therefore, interpret this award to mean that the facts above referred to be resolved (jointly if necessary) on the property and settlement made in accordance with the developed facts.