Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7271
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7121
2-LI-EW-'77
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Nicholas H. Zumas when award was rendered.
( System Federation No.
156,
Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Electrical Workers)
(
( The Long Island Rail Road Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That under the current agreement, Electrician Third Rai7snan Truck
L. E. Hassard and Electrician Third Railman D. Konival were
improperly compensated for service which they rendered on December
27 and December 28, 1974.
2. That the Carrier additionally compensate the aforesaid employes
the difference between the time and one-half rate and the double
time rate for work performed between the hours of 12:00 midnight
to
5:00
a.m. and 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon on December 28, 1974.
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 Tune 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.
Claimants were regularly assigned electricians working from 8:00 a.m.
to x+:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. On Friday, December 27, 1974 Claimants
worked their regular hours ending at 4:00 p.m. They were asked to work
overtime that evening starting at 9:00 p.m. They commenced at 9:00 p.m.
and worked until 12:00 noon the following day.
They were compensated as follows:
December 27 8:00 a.m. - x+:00 p.m. straight time
December 27-28 9:00 P.m. - 5:00 a.m. time and one-half
December 28 5:00 a.m. - 8:00 a.m. double time
December 28 8:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon time and one-half
Form 1 Award No. 7271
Page 2 Docket No. 7121
2-ZI-EW-'77
The Organization, on behalf of Claimants, contends that Carrier violated
the provisions of Rule 5 of the Agreement when it failed and refused to-pay
Claimants double time for work performed between 12:00 midnight and 12:00
noon on December 28.
Rule
5
provides in pertinent part:
"All service beyond sixteen (16) hours, computed from the
starting time of the employe's regular shift, shall be
paid for at the rate of double time.
If an employe is required to render service beyond twentyfour (24) hours computed from the starting time of his
regular shift, double time payment will be continued. An
employe will not be required to render service beyond such
twenty-four (24) hour period except to complete the
assignment."
The Board finds that Carrier correctly compensated Claimants for service
performed from 9:00 p.m. on December 27 to 8:00 a.m. on December 28, namely,
time and one-half from 9:00 p.m. to
5:00
a.m. and double time from 5:00 a.m.
to 8:00 a.m. It is clear that "service" is synonymous with "work".
Claimants did nothing for Carrier between x+:00 p.m. (the end of their regular
shift) and 9:00 p.m. (when they commenced overtime work). We would be
putting an undue strain on the plain meaning of the English language if we
were to consider this period of no work as "service" under the rule.
With respect to that portion of the claim for double time between
8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, the Board finds that it must be sustained.
Carrier erroneously takes the position that the requirement under the
rule to pay double time ends at the expiration of the 24 hour period that
began at Claimants' starting time, and it cites numerous denial awards to
support its position. In all of the awards cited by Carrier, the agreements
therein used the language "beyond 16 hours of service in a 24 hour pe
riod
computed from starting time of employe's regular shift." No such 2 hour
period limitation is part of Rule
5
of this agreement. Moreover, Rule
5
requires that the double time payment "will be continued" if an employe is
required to perform service beyond 24 hours computed from the commencement
of an employe's regular shift.
A W A R D
Claim sustained in part and denied in part per findings herein.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Form 1
Page
3
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
axie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 5th day of April, 1977.
Award No. 7271
Docket No. 7121
2-LI-EGT-
t
77