The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Francis B. Murphy, when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 13, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A.F.L.-C.I.O. (Electrical Workers)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: J. B. Morris, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, is employed as a system installer, in the Communications Department, of the Wabash Railroad Company, hereinafter referred to as the carrier. The claimant has an assigned headquarters at Montpelier, Ohio, and is compensated on a monthly basis. He is assigned to work Monday through Friday, with Saturday as a stand-by or subject to call day and Sunday as an assigned rest day.
On Saturday, November 16, 1957, the claimant was required to perform ordinary construction work at Detroit, Michigan. The carrier has refused to additionally compensate the claimant for the performance of ordinary construction work on the sixth day of his assigned work week.
The dispute was handled with carrier officials designated to handle such affairs, who all declined to adjust the matter.
The agreement effective October 1, 1940, as subsequently amended, is controlling.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: It is submitted that the claimant was required to perform construction work at Detroit, Michigan, on Saturday, Novem-
With regard to the second paragraph which the Forty-Hour Week Committee in its Supplement to Decision No. 33 directed be incorporated into individual agreements, reading:
That paragraph, due to the nature of the work performed, provides no support for the claim herein involved.
Furthermore, the 40-Hour Week Committee in its Supplement to Decision No. 33 fur.her stated:
That clearly shows that the 40-Hour Week Committee recognized that system installers did not have an assigned rest day on March 19, 1949.
The committee failing to gain the inclusion of a rule providing an additional four (4) hours at the pro rata hourly basic rate of pay for system installers if required to work on the sixth day of the work week by decision of the 40-Hour Week Committee in its Supplement to Decision No. 33, has now presented this claim for an additional seven (7) hours at straight time (following an original claim for 10 hours at time and one-half) for work performed on Saturday, the sixth day of the work week, to this Division for decision in an attempt to gain a rule providing for such allowance through the medium of an award, regardless of the fact that the work performed on the Saturday claim date was work of a type which would have been performed on Sundays prior to March 19, 1949.
As the National Railroad Adjus'-went Board, Second Division, is without jurisdiction to promulgate or grant rules, the contentions of the committee should be dismissed and the claims 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. 3445-13 195
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
Mr. J. B. Morris, employed as a system installer for the carrier on a monthly basis, worked on his stand-by day installing an Electronic Messenger. The organization asserts in its claim that he should be additionally compensated in the amoant of seven hours at the straight time rate of pay for Saturday, November 16, 1957, which was his stand-by day.
The carrier denied the claim on the basis that the Electronic Messenger was installed on Saturday and Sunday so that this change w;.uld not disrupt, any more than necessary, its operation of its facilities. Carrier further contends that this was not "Ordinary Maintenance or Construction Work" as used in the Forty-Hour Week Agreement effective September 1, 1949.
We do not agree with the Organization that Award 1704 of this Division applies to the facts as presented.
The evidence in this case more clearly applies to the decision rendered by this Division in Award 1944, where it was agreed to the following:
We agree with the carrier that Saturd9y and Sunday would be the proper time to make such a change in its System of Communications. This is a vital part of their operation, and on these days there would be much less need for commmications between points on their lines as the traffic movement would not only be less but the employes requiring such service would be far less. We do not feel that this installation could be classified as an ordinary intallation. It was a completely new method of handling messages and the evidence presented shows that the work performed by the claimant was for the "setting up and testing," not maintenance and construction.
This work was such that it would be seldom required and of necessity had to be performed when the installation would least affect the carrier's operation.