Form 1
Parties to Dispute:
Dispute: Claim of
'NATIONA~ RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award J`;o.
7169
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
70+0
2-SP(PL)-MA-'76
The Second Division consisted of tJ.e regular members and in
addation Referee Gene `.C'. Ritter when award was rendered.
International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers
Southern Pacific Transportation Company
(Pacific Lines)
1. That Carrier has '__mpropexly computed wages for service in the month
of June
197+
fox tzonthJ,y rated Traveling Motor Car Mechanic J. E.
Tybo (hereinafter referred to as Claimant).
2.
That Carrier be ordered to compensate Claimant at the rate of time
and one-half for each hour of service in excess of
775 1/3
for the
month of June,
197J+.
3. That Carrier be ordered to compute Claimant's rate of day pursuant
to the provisions of Rule
2
(b) of the Agreement effective May 1,
19+8,
(revised April 1,
1960),
Article II, Section 2 (a) of the
Agreement dated AL.gust 21,
195+,
Article TI, Section
6
(a) of the
Agreement dated FEbx·uary
4, 1965
and Article IT, Section 1 (d) of
the Agreement dated October 7, 1971.
Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole xpcoxa and
all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or caxxiexE and the employe or employes involved ire this
dispute axe respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of t:ie
Railway Labor Act as approved June 21,
193+.
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 facts giving rise to this dispute are identical to the facts
contained in Award No.
7167_
Therefore, this Claim will be sustained fox
the same reasons set out in Award No.
7167.
A W A R D
Claim Sustained,
Fox -.j 1
Page 2
Award No. ?169
Docket No. 70~+0
2-SP(Ph )-MA-
T
~'E.
NATIO:l?AL RAILROAD AT)JUSTM..U1T BOARD
By Order of
Second Division
Attest: Executive_ Secretary
iVa'A..orzal Railroad Adjustment Board
A.%-..Le,L /0-tj
Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative
Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of November,
176.
CARRIER MEMBERS' DI;pSENT TO AWARDS 7167, DOCKET 7037
7168, DOCKET 7038
7169, DOCKET 7040
7170, DOCKET 7041
In these awards the Referee correctly holds that Rule 2(b) is controlling,
but then exceeds the jurisdiction of the Board by arbitrarily refusing to
apply the rule as it is plainly written.
Rule 2(b) states that to monthly rated employees "No overtime will be
allowed for time worked in excess of eight (8) hours per day. . ." Thus, the
parties could not have written a more clear, direct and absolute prohibition
against allowing overtime for time worked in excess of eight hours per day.
This prohibition is not discriminatory because other benefits which guarantee
the monthly rated employee appropriate and adequate compensation are provided
for in the agreement.
In drafting these awards., the Referee has refused to apply these clear
provisions in Rule 2(b), and has attempted to engraft limitations thereon.
The sole reason offered for this action is obviously arbitrary. This reason
is stated as follows:
'T.
. . It is the opinion of this Board that it was not the
intent of the Agreement to place monthly rated employes in
a worse position w_Lth respect to compensation than hourly
rated employes. . ,."
The assumption which serves as the sole basis for this "opinion'", namely,
that monthly rated employees will be in a worse position with respect to
compensation than hourly rated employees if overtime is not allowed contrary
to the clear provisions of the rule, is utterly false and unsupported by
anything in the record; but even if this assumption were correct, it could
not properly serve as a basis for refusing to apply the clear and unequivocal
provisions of the rule as the parties have written them.
It is elementary law that this Board's powers are limited to the interpretation of agreements. We have no right to ignore clear provisions of an
agreement or to change such provisions, either overtly or under the guise of
interpretation.
We respectfully submit it is obvious that these awards constitute an
invalid attempt to change the parties' agreement; and we direct attention to
the fact the new method of payment which the Referee has illegally attempted
to establish would have the preposterous effect of requiring the payment of
overtime to a monthly rated employee for working during his regularly assigned
hours at the end of a long month.
CARRIER MEMBERS' DISSENT TO AWARDS 7167, 7168, 7168, 7170 Page Z
The memorandum submitted by 'the Carrier Member at the panel discussion
of this case correctly states the issues as well as the law, and it is
incorporated herein by reference.
We dissent.
i
i
'tr
V'
i
j
t~ _ ~ .
i
1
i