Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 6691
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6525
2-SCL-CM-'74
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Irving T. Bergman when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 42, Railway Employes'
( Department, A.F. of L. - C.I.O.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
( Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That at Tallahassee, Florida, changing of the first shift
repair forces to a lunch period of thirty
(30)
minutes
which ends at
3:30
P.M, is not authorized by the current
agreement.
2. That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to compensate the
following employes one (1) hours at pro rata rate for each
day this violation occurs since July
31,
1971 until it is
" corrected. A. B. Stout, A. V. Youngblood, C. 0. Harvey,
H. B. Shelfer, J. B. Strickland, J. R. Nix, T. C. Ezell,
M. L. Burks, J. D. McKendree, Jr., F. E. Wenzel, G. W. Beal,
Jr., E. B. Chairs, Alexander Henry, M. Hardy, L. C. Spears,
A. Gibson, Jr., L. E. Lucas, M. S. Hogan, J. Wilford and
J.. R. Perry.
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.
It is not dispute d that for some years prior to August 1, 1971,
the Carrier's repair track at Tallahassee, Fla., was operated on a oneshift basis, with the employes assigned 7:00 a.m. to
3:00
P.m., including
an allowance for lunch of twenty minutes with pay within the eight consecutive hours. Rule 2(a) of the applicable Agreement provides: "(a)
When one shift is employed, the starting time shall be 7:00 a.m. local
time, or as may be agreed upon at any shop by the Company and employees
. covered by this agreement. The time and length of the lunch period
Form 1 Award No. 6697:
Page~2 Docket No. 65251
2-SCL-CM-' 74
shall be arranged by mutual agreement." It is also not disputed that
prior to August 1, 1971, the local officials of the Carrier discussed
with the Local Chairman of the Organization the matter of lunch period
for the repair track force with a view to agreeing upon the time and
length of same. The Local Chairman refused to agree upon any change.
The Carrier then placed in effect a thirty minute lunch period without
pay, with the result that the quitting time became
3:30
p.m. rather
than 3:00 p.m. The Carrier contends that the change was made for the
purpose of increased productivity and to expedite repairs to needed
equipment.
It is well settled that Carrier may determine the way in which the
work and operations are to be performed and conducted in the interest
of economy and efficiency except to the extent limited by law or by
agreement with the representatives of its employes. It is also well
established that the provisions of an agreement shall prevail and that
past practices does not estop the Carrier or its employes from enforcing
a contractual provision at any time. It was not, therefore, a violation
of the agreement for the Carrier to institute proceedings for the estab-lishment of a lunch period without pay for the employes here involved.
The agreement provides only the that time and length of the lunch period
will be by mutual agreement. In prior awards of this Division, we have
held that failure to achieve such mutual understanding does not carry
with it the power of the Organization to, in effect, veto such changes.
Awards
2798
and
4605.
Our attention has been called to Award
6480
involving the same
parties as here and a two-shift operation at another location. We
have carefully reviewed that award and find it distinguishable from the
present dispute. In that Award the Board found that the Carrier submitted nothing to support its assertion that the change was made to
meet its operational needs. In the present case the Carrier has submitted evidence.of the need for increased productivity. In any event,
the determination of efficiency and economy of operation is for Carrier,
except as limited by law or by agreement.
We find no agreement provision restricting the Carrier from making
the change here complained of. In addition, the handling on the property,
the Carrier asserted without refutation by the Organization:
"*
* * rip
track forces throughout our system observe a 30 minute lunch period; and
the change at Tallahassee is consistent with other locations on our
property."
The Agreement was not violated.
Form 1
Page
3
Award No. 6691
Docket No. 652'5
2-SCL-CM-'74
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By
Rosem rie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of May, 1974.
NATIONAL RAILROAD
ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division