The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in ad
dition Referee Dudley E. Whiting when the award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 97, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L.-C. I. O. (Elcctrycal Workers)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Electrician Gerald E. Menges, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, is employed by The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway System, hereinafter referred to as the carrier, in Shop Extension Department Electrical Forces.
The claimant is one of a number of electricians employed by the carrier in this department, is assigned to install and maintain electrical equipment at various points on the carrier's property (Western Lines) and is compensated on a monthly basis.
Electricians in the Shop Extension Department, including the claimant, are assigned to a work week of Monday through Friday, with Saturday as a stand-by or subject to call day and Sunday as the assigned rest day.
On Sunday, October 14, 1956, the claimant traveled from La Junta, Colorado, to Pueblo, Colorado, for the purpose of taking an examination for a city license, upon instructions of Electrical Foreman G. J. DeBaun. See
In this particular case, carrier realized that the possession of a licensL by Lead Electrician Menges to perform electrical work within the city limits of Pueblo, required by the ordinance, was of benefit to both the claimant and the carrier, therefore, the personal expenses incurred by him were allowed; also the license fee was paid by the carrier. The carrier stood the entire expense in order that the claimant could take the examination and obtain the license. The claimant was not put to any expense whatever.
Carrier asserts that time spent taking examinations, such as the one here in dispute, is not considered "work" within the meaning of the agreement rules, as there was no "service" performed for which compensation was due.
Carrier also asserts, that the employes' claim is without support of the agreement rules; that there is no rule, and the employes have not cited any, requiring payment for time taking examinations such as the one here in dispute. Carrier respectfully requests that the employes' claim in this dispute 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.
We have consistently held that employes required to take tests are not performing work or service under the rules. Even though they are inconvenienced thereby we cannot sustain a pay claim in the absence of a rule providing compensation for time so spent.
There is no exception in the applicable rules of the controlling agreement to justify the majority's conclusion that the instant service performed for the carrier by the claimant on his rest day should not be paid for under the provisions of Rule 7 (j) which provides 3150-9 315