(Advance copy. The usual printed copies will be sent later.) !
orm 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
i
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6278 i
2-BN-CM-'73
f
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Irving T. Bergman when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 7, Railway Employes',
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
(
( Burlington Northern, Inc.
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That Carman R. Schlichting, Lincoln. Nebraska, was improperly compensated on Saturday, December 26,
1970,
his second rest. day of his
regular work week, when only allowed time and one-half his basic
rate of compensation.
I
2. That accordingly,
Carman
H. Schlichting is entitled to be additionally
compensated for two (2) hours and thirty
(30)
minutes at carmen's
straight time rate, which represents the difference in-time and onehalf payment received for that day and the double-time payment due
for the five
(5)
hours service performed on his second rest day. I,
findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole' record and all.
the evidence, finds that:
G
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.
i
This Divisioa!bf'the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
r
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Claimant's assigned workweek is from 12:00 midnight to 8:00 A.M., Sunday
through Thursday, with Friday and Saturday as his rest days. He worked all the
hours of his shift Sunday through Thursday and also performed service on Friday
for which he was paid time and one half. Claimant also performed service on
Saturday for five hours. Because he worked on his first rest day and also on
his second rest day, the organization contends that claimant has net the requirements of Article V of the National. Agreement of April
24, 1970
and is entitled to
double time pay for hours worked on the second rest day.
i
Form 1 Award No. 61'
Page 2 Docket No.
62Co
2-BN-CM-'73
The Carrier contends that claimant did not do his o'~m assigned
work on the second rest day but filled in for another employe who laid off
on his
assigment.
The Carrier also contends that claimant volunteered ror the
work by placing his name on the call board and thereby created a new assignment
for himself whenever he was called.
Article V of the National Agreement refers to, "service performed --- on
the second rest
day ---",
to qualify for double time pay. The only proviso is that
claimant must have worked all the hours regularly assigned to him for work and has
also "worked" on the first rest day of his work week.
The National Agreement is clear. An attempt to read more into it
would be to amend its provisions which we have no authority to do. Carrier does
not contend that the wor1; performed on the second rest day was an emergency.
The Carrier assigns regular work schedules. Employes volunteering
for work on rest
days
do not thereby change the work week assigned by the Carrier.
If they did, claimant could change his assignment and have a different workweek,
and rest days every time he volunteered to perform service on his rest days.
Doing different work than that normally performed by him or.-filling in for another
employe's assignment does not alter the fact that work has been performed by
claimant on the sixth and seventh day of the claimant's work week after completing
his regular five day, forty hour assignment.
The application of Article V of the National Agreement has been
uniformly and consistently demonstrated in a number of recent Awards of the
Second Division to wit; Nos.
6336, 6349,
6282, 6283,.etc. The facts of this
case are not different from those of the prior cases.
A W A R D
Claim sustained. .
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
$y Order of Second Division.
Attest:. j
Executive Secretary.
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this
2nd day
of May, 19730