Parties to Dispute: (Carmen)

Dispute: Claim of Employes:



            2. That under the current applicable agreement, Carman L. Kocke employed by the New Orleans Public Belt Railroad is entitled to compensation for four (4) hours at the pro rata rate of pay for April 14, 1971.


            3. That accordingly, the New Orleans Public Belt Railroad be ordered to compensate Carman L. Kocke for four (4) hours at the pro rata rate of pay for said violation.


            4. That accordingly, in addition to the money amounts claimed herein, the New Orleans Public Belt Railroad be ordered to compensate Carman L. Koeke an additional amount of 6% per annum compounded annually on the anniversary date of April 1 , 1971 .


Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Hoard, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employs or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June ?1, 1934.

        This Division of the Adjustment Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute i

involved herein.

        Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.


        On April 13, 7.977- Claimant called in ill and was absent from work on that

day. Claimant was assigned to the 7:00 A.M. to 3:30 P.M. shift. On the afternoon j

 of April 13 Claimant was informed by telephone that his shift hard been changed to
 i
 3-"0 P.M. to 11:00 P.M, until further notice. Claimant reported for work at 3:00 P.M.
    'ae following day, April 14, 1971.

                                                      r r I


'Form 1 Award No. 65,-
 :'age 2 Docket No. 6381
 2-110PB-04-' 73

 Claimant is asking for an additional four (4) hours pay at the pro
 ,_-ata rate for April 14 in that he claims he was entitled to eight hours of pay
 .:t time and one half on that day under rule lI. which rends as follows: "

            "rBployees changed from one shift to another will be paid overtime for the first shift of each change. Duployees working two shifts or more on a new shift shall be considered transferred."


The Carrier claims that the shift. change was effected April 13, 1971 and ;:teat another employee worked the 3:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M. shift on April 13 and was :aid the overtime rate. The Carrier argues that -the Claimant would only have been -..ntitl ed to the overtime rate if he had worked on April 13.

 We do not follow the Carrier's reasoning. On April 14, 1971 the Claimant
 changed from one shift to another and was entitled to the punitive rate on that day.
 :;°e Award 5654 (Coffey) which reads in part:
 "Clairnan t eras regularly assigned to work 8:00 Ax. 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 Not
 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.


                              ' Changing Shifts'


                  Rule 9---Roployees changed from one shift to another will be paid overtime rates for the first shift of each change, except those changing from one shift to another in the exercising of seniority rights, who will be paid pro rata rates; employees working two shifts or more on the new shift shall be considered transferred.'


              The dispute is over the negotiated meaning and intent of Rule 9, supra., as applied to stipulated facts.

Award No. 6521
 age j Docket No. 6381

                                                2-NOPB-CM-173


              The rule refers specifically to changing shifts. No reference is made to a change as assignments for the obvious reason that a change of assignments is usually accomplished in the 'exercising of seniority rights' 3n 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 'employees working two shifts or more on new shift shall be considered transferred;' and, conditioned further, that 'employees changed from one shift to another will be paid overtime rates for the first shift of each change.'


              Reasoned as above, the Claimant, who was changed from one shift to another by a unilateral transfer, is entitled to the punitive pay claimed, for working the first of his 'new shifts' on December 21."


We cannot, however, find any basis in the Agreement for the interest claimed.

                            A W A R D


        Claim sustained.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Second Division


Attest: .y A

              Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Minois, this 18th day of June, 1973.

 c