Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 640'r .
SECOND DMS ION Docket No. 6248
2-CofG-CM-'72
The Second Divisicn consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Irwin M. Lieberman when award was rendered.

( System Federation No. 21, Railway Lr_ployes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. G.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)



Dispute: Claim of Employes:





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 disputeare 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 alleges that the Carrier left a small portion of work at a derailment undone and relieved the crew in order to avoid the payment of double time. Rule 10 states:


Form 1
Award No. 640?
Page 2 Docket No. 6248 )






Petitioner claims that there was less than one hour's work left to make the cars ready for transporting to home point when the crew was relieved and that therefore the crew should be- construed to be on waiting time and hence exempt from the provisions of Rule 10 (second paragraph), that is, the claimant should be paid gn a continuing basis.

The record indicates that Claimant and other members of the crew returned to work at-8:00'A.M, on August:27th_after the relief period, and worked for more than three hours on the wrecked-cars. Subsequently.,-after some difficulty and a waiting period, they were returned to their home base at 9:30 P.M. that night. The facts do not support the"contention..that there was only a small amount of work left at the scene of the derailment at the time that the crew was relieved. '

In Second Division Award No. 4963 we said "The Carrier has the right to._._ . schedule its wor% in the interest of economy and efficiency except as prevented or limited by statute or agreement". In this case we find that the Carrier exercised its normal perogatiles in determining how much work was to be done and when it was to be done; it also met its concamitant responsibility in compensating its employees in accordance with the Agreement.







Attest:` . ~,~;.~ _ ` . _



Dated at Chicago; 1119-nois, this 21st day of November, 1972:

No 01