The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee A. Langley Coffey when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 50, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L.-C. I. O. (Carmen)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Carman R. C. Thomas, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, was regularly employed as a carman on the repair track of the Jacksonville Terminal Company, hereinafter referred to as the carrier, with an assigned work week of Wednesday through Sunday, with assigned hours of 8 A. M. to 4 P. M., with Monday and Tuesday as his regularly assigned rest days.
Carman H. M. Simpson held a regular Saturday through Wednesday assignment, with assigned hours of 11 P. M. to 8 A. M., with assigned rest days of Thursday and Friday.
Carman Simpson was absent for several days, therefore, since it was necessary to fill his assignment, men were called from the overtime board to fill his assignment and compensated at the time and one-half rate of pay.
On December 20, 1965, a letter of resignation was received by the Master Mechanic from carman H. M. Simpson, whereupon the following bulletin was posted by Master Mechanic A. C. Herrington:
payment on that day and that thereafter the change of shift payment under Rule 9 of the Agreement does not apply.
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 was regularly assigned to work 8:00 A. M. to 4:00 P. M. Wednesday through Sunday, rest days Monday and Tuesday.
Carrier changed Claimant from one shift to another in order to cover a 11:00 P. M. Carman Job/C-6 vacancy, while the job was under bulletin to work Saturday through Wednesday, rest days Thursday and Friday.
Claimant reported off sick and unable to work his "new shift" on December 20. He came out and worked on December 21 and was paid pro rata. He claims the difference in pay at the overtime rate for the "new shift" worked by him that date.
Carrier denied his claim on the grounds that he was not available for the first shift of his changed assignment; and, therefore, forfeited his right to a punitive payment.
The dispute is over the negotiated meaning and intent of Rule 9, supra., as applied to stipulated facts.
The Rule refers specifically to changing shifts. No reference is made to a change of assignments for the obvious reason that a change in assignments is usually accomplished in the "exercising of seniority rights" in which event "changing from one shift to another" does not carry a punitive rate.
Another change in shifts can be accomplished by a unilateral transfer, as here, conditioned, however, that "employes working two shifts or more on new shift shall be considered transferred;" and, conditioned further, that "employes changed from one shift to another will be paid overtime rates for the first shift of each change."