·~,~_ Award No. 5175
Docket No. 4940
2-B&O-CM-'67
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Ben Harwood when the award was rendered.
PARTIES TO DISPUTE
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 30, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. - C. I. O. (Carmen)
THE BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES:
(1) The current shop crafts agreement was violated by the
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, hereinafter referred to as the
carrier, when the following Carmen were improperly compensated
for changing shifts.
G. Liddle
E. Maleski
M. Karetski
(2) Accordingly, the carrier should compensate the claimants
in the amount of eight hours each at the overtime rate.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On August 3, 1964, a notice
-vas posted by Superintendent of Slops W. A. Barrick at the DuBois Car
,Shop, DuBois, Pennsylvania, notifying all concerned that:
"Effective with the scheduled close of tour of duty, Friday,
August 7th, 1964 All Carman Cutting Torch Operators, Carman Welder Operators, Carmn (sic) and Carmen Helper Positions on the
SECOND TRICK in the Underframe Shop Erecting Shop, and Roundhouse ARE ABOLISHED.
All employes affected by this abolishment will report to work
Monday Auguat (sic) 10th and t :00 A. M. and arrange to exercise
seniority."
Copy of this notice is attached and entered as Exhibit A.
On August 11, 1964, a claim was filed by Local Chairman on behalf of
25 Carmen and Carmen helpers. Inadvertently the claimants were not included
in the initial claim, therefore, on September 22, 1964, claim was initiated
for these claimants, and copy thereof is attached as Exhibit B. The claimants
held second shift assignments when they were instructed by Carrier to report
to the first shift.
"At conference on October 5 we discussed the application of Rule
10, including the interpretation thereof to the restoration of forces
which have been previously furloughed.
The third paragraph of the interpretation of Rule 10 makes no
reference whatever to restoration of forces but is confined solely to
change of shifts caused by reduction in force. Therefore the examples
contained in that paragraph are likewise confined to change of shifts
caused by reduction in force.
When force is increased after it has been reduced, employes are
not obliged to change shift but do so only if they desire to do
so. Therefore any change of shift is a change at the request of the
,employe involved and Rule 10 does not apply in such circumstances."
Again, the letter of November 24, 1948 represented the conclusions
reached in the conference of October 5. Again there is no additional correspondence on the subject. There were no further conferences.
Conclusions Deriving From The Interpretations The Parties
Themselves Have Placed On Rule 10 (a) When Related To The Factual Record In The Instant Case:
The parties have consistently followed these interpretations to Rule 10(a)
since at least 1947 and 1948.
In the instant case, if what occurred be construed as a "reduction in
force," then plainly the claimants are not entitled to overtime fox the first
shift of the change because they did not lose a day's pay.
On the other hand, if what occurred be construed as a restoration of
forces, then similarly the claimants are not entitled to overtime for the first
shift of the change because, as the parties have agreed since 1948, "When
force is increased after it has been reduced, employes are not obliged to
change shift but do so only if they desire to do so. Therefore, any change
of shift that occurs in connection with the restoration of forces is a change
at the request of the employe involved and Rule 10 does not apply in such
circumstances."
Plainly, by following the language of Rule 10(a) and, just as importantly,
the interpretations the parties themselves have placed on the rule, the
claimants in this case did not qualify for the overtime payment. The claims
here are not valid and ought to be denied. The Carrier respectfully requests
that this Board so rule and these claims be denied in their entirety.
Oral hearing is requested.
(Exhibits not reproduced.)
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.
5175 7
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
Along with Docket 4941, this case was presented by representatives of
both parties involved as a companion case to Docket 4939, now Award 6174.
Accordingly, the decision should be the same.
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of SECOND DIVISION
ATTEST: Charles C. McCarthy
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of May 1967.
Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, Ill. Printed in U.S.A.
5175 S