The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Joseph M. McDonald when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 17, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L.-C. I. O. (Carmen)
THE NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN AND HARTFORD
RAILROAD COMPANY
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: James B. Davitt, Jr., hereinafter referred to as the claimant, is employed by the New York, New Haven & Hartford R.R.Co., hereinafter referred to as the carrier, as a car inspector in the carrier's New Haven, Conn., car yards, with regularly assigned hours of 8:00 A. M. to 4:00 P. M., Saturday and Sunday as rest days.
On Friday, March 24, 1961 claimant was ordered, by the carrier, to appear in court, in New York City, 72.5 miles from his home terminal, as a witness for the carrier, before the court. The claimant departed from New Haven at approximately 8:00 A. M. 3/24/61 and arrived back in New Haven at 8:00 P. M., 3/24/61, a total of twelve (12) hours.
On Monday, March 27, 1961, the claimant was again sent to New York, to appear before the Court on the same case. He departed New Haven at approximately 8:00 A. M., 3/27/61 and arrived back in New Haven, from New York, at 7:30 P. M. and was paid as follows:
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.
Claimant is a Car Inspector at Carrier's New Haven, Conn. Car Yards. His regularly assigned hours are from 8:00 A. M. to 4:00 P. M., Saturday and Sunday as rest days.
On Friday, March 24, 1961, Claimant was ordered by the Carrier to appear on its behalf in New York City as a witness in Court. Claimant left New Haven at 8:00 A. M., and returned at 8:00 P. M.
On Monday, March 27, 1961, Claimant was again ordered to New York City for the same reason and was away from New Haven from 8:00 A. M. to 7:30s P.M.
Claimant is seeking compensation at the time and one-half rate for the, time spent on this assignment in excess of his regular eight hour assignment.
It is Carrier's contention that the Claimant, under the first paragraph of the rule, is entitled only to his straight time for eight hours on the days in question, which were days of his regular assignment.
Claimant maintains that the first paragraph must be read with the second paragraph of the rule, and that the time he was held after his regularly assigned hours should be compensated at the time and one-half rate.
A careful reading of the rule, and a fair evaluation of its intended purpose leads us to the following conclusions:
Paragraph one of the rule was designed to properly compensate the employe who is deprived of a day's work because of the requirements of management. He is reimbursed so that he is no worse off than if he had been allowed to work his shift on that day.
Paragraph two applies to an employe who in fact does work his shift for which he is regularly compensated, but since he is held over, either immediately before or after his regular workday, he is additionally compensated.
We hold that each paragraph of the rule is severable in that each applies to a different situation. Under the circumstances involved in this dispute, the Claimant was entitled to be reimbursed for a day's pay equal to his regular assignment of eight hours.