Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 66813
SECOND DIVISION
Docket No. 6505
2-WT-CM-'74
.The Second
Division
consisted of the regular members and
in addition Referee Irving T. Bergman when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 106, Railway Employes'
( Department, A.F. of L. - C.I.O.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
( The Washington Terminal Company
Dispute:Claim of Employes:
1. That under the current agreement, Car Repairmen, J . E.
Carter, M. E. Gosnell, L. E. Heffner, C. R. Orndorff,
A. L. Phillips and D. Anderson, were wrongfully denied pay
ment of call time for reporting for work on February
23,
1972 after being called but not used.
2. That Carrier violated the terms of the 60-day limit rule
contained in the agreement of August 21,
1954
when it
s failed to disallow the claims within 60 days.
3.
That accordingly, Carmen, J. E. Carter, M. E. Gosnell, L.
E. Heffner, C. R. Orndorff, A. L. Phillips and D. Anderson,
are entitled to have their appeals. allowed as presented
and be compensated in the amount of four hours' p ay each.
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.
The Organization contends that at about 6:00 P.M. on February 23,
1972, claimant Heffner received a telephone call from the Car Foreman
who told him that things were in a mess at the Terminal; to get the
Brunswick, Maryland carmen together and come to work. Heffner did
directed and the claimants reported at 9:00 P.M. The foreman could
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 6688
Docket No. 650`,1
2-WT-CM-174
not be located. They waited until their regular assigm d starting time
at 12:00 midnight and then went to work on their regular assignments.
The Carrier contends that the call was only to assure that the men
would be available at their regular time because of a severe storm.
The evidence in the record does not support the foreman in believing
that the men would not report as usual either because of their past
records or because of any occurrence on the night in question. There is
nothing in the record to indicate that claimants had any reason to
report three hours early if they had not been called. On the facts
presented, we believe that the men reported early because they understood that they were called to do so.
Rule 18 of the Agreement required employes to notify the foreman
if they would not be able to report. It is not claimed by the Foreman
that such notice was received from claimants. Rule 7, subdivision
3,
provides that Employes called to report for service who report and are
not used will be allowed a minimum of four hours at straight time pay.
There is no need to discuss claim No. 2 regarding the Carrier's
failure to comply with the time limitation because we find that the
claim is allowed on the merits. Claimants are each entitled to four
hours pay at the pro rata rate;
A W A R D
Claims 1 and
3
sustained. Claim
3
disposed of as indicated in
Findings.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By
Roseiarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated
-L
Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of May, 1974.