r°.
Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 6642
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6393'
2-SPT(PL)-MA-' 74
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Nicholas H. Zumas when award was rendered.
( International Association of Machinists and
( Aerospace Workers
Parties to Dispute:
( Southern Pacific Transportation Company
( (Pacific Lines)
Dilute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Carrier violated Rule 10 of the current controlling
Agreement when Machinists T. P. Silva, E. Pieracci, J. C.
Giusti,, A. G. Nauyocks and L. H. Rexwinkle (hereinafter
referred to as Claimants) were denied four (4) hours
compensation at the straight time rate on March 28, 1971
for reporting to work and not being used.
2. That, accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to compensate each
Claimant four (4) hours pay at the straight time rate.for
March 28, 1971.
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.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing
thereon.
Five Claimants, by and through the Organization, contend that
Carrier violated Rule 10 of the Agreement*/ in that they were called
for overtime work but not used. The reason for not using the Claimants
was that after they had reported for work it was discovered that they
would be performing service on their seventh consecutive work day
requiring payment at the double time rate.
*/ "Rule 10. Employees required to report for work, and reporting,
but not used, will be paid a minimum of four (4) hours at
straight time rate."
Form 1
Pa ge 2
Award No. 6642.
Docket No. 6393
2-SPT(PL)-MA-' 74
The record shows that for several years, Carrier had delegated
the responsibility of calling men for overtime work to the Organization's
local committee.
Carrier denied the claims contending that during February of
1970 Carrier issued orders to the local committeemen**/ at Roseville
not to call employees on their second rest days under circumstances
that would involve double time compensation,,and that those instructions
were violated by the Organization's own local committeemen not chargeable
to Carrier.
Carrier further contends that since the Organization denies
the existence of those instructions, such denial creates "a factual
impasse upon which this Board is powerless to base any finding other
than dismissal of the claim."
A n analysis of the unique circumstances of this dispute compels
the conclusion that the claims should be sustained. When Carrier, for
whatever reason, designated the local committee to act on Carrier's
behalf, that local committee became Carrier's agent for the purpose
of selecting employees for overtime work.
If, as Carrier contends, the local committee violated its
instructions, then the local committee had no actual authority, it
had the apparent authority to make the selections it did as far as
the five Claimants were.concerned. There is nothing in this record
to show that the Claimants were put on notice that the local committee
did not have the authority to do what it did. Contrary to Carrier's
contention, such action by its agent was chargeable to Carrier.
Having so determined, it is unnecessary to consider whether
there was a "factual impasse" as to the Carrier's instructions to
its agent.
A W A R D
Claim sustained.
Attest: Executive Secretary
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
National Railroad Adjustment Board
osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of- February, 1974.
The Record indicates that the local committeemen in February
1970 were not the same as those involved in this dispute.