Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
7317
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7167
2-PFE-CM-'77
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee David P. Twomey when award was rendered.
( Railway Employes' Department
( A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
( Pacific Fruit Express Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Carrier violated the controlling Agreement when it
deprived Carman Ruben W. Robles of five (5 ) hours' time, or
the equivalent of $29.00 in wages, by improperly altering his
time card after the end of his work shift under date of April
8, 1975.
2. That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to compensate Carman
Robles for his wage loss as set forth in the original claim by
the Local Chairman, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
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 Claimant, Mr. R. Robles, is a regularly assigned Carman in the
Carrier's Car Repair Shop at Tucson, Arizona. Mr. Robles is Chairman of
the Local Protective Board. On April 8, 1975, he punched his time card in
at 7:30 A.M. and out at 4:31 P.M. The time his card noted that the
Claimant was charged out for Union Business at 8:00 A.M. and returned at
1:30 P.M. The Claimant was paid for the three hours worked, as ultimately
designated on the time card. Mr. Robles in his June 23, 1975 letter to
the Superintendent of the M & E Department stated in part:
"In paragraph five you should have also quoted Rule 36 (a)
which reads '(a) Employes subject to this agreement who
t
..
Form 1 Award No.
7317
Page 2 Docket No. 7167 ,~,,
2-PFE-CM-'77
"'believe they have been unjustly dealt with or that
provisions of the agreement have been misapplied shall
have the right to submit the facts to their foreman
for adjustment arid/or the duly authorized Local
Committee ....°, which would have supported my reasons for
conducting Union Business on April 8, 1975. There were
several matters handled to a conclusion on this day
before they had turned into major incidents.
In paragraph six of your letter you state that I was
not in conference with management but that I was 'In
fact conducting Union Business involving claims, etc.',
which is correct, for claims occurring on the company
property are either caused by you, yourself, Mr.
Stedman or by one of your supervisory staff, not by
myself or by the members that I represent. Also...."
The Organization contends that the action by the Carrier in noting
the Claimant out at 8:00 A.M. and in at 1:30 P.M. was a violation of
Rule 37(a) of the Agreement which states in pertinent part:
"No employee shall be disciplined or dismissed without a
fair hearing by a designated Officer of the Company."
The Organization insists that the Carrier withheld a part of this employe's
wages without a fair hearing which is a form of discipline.
This Board is limited to specific facts and circumstances of each
case before it. While the Organization may have made out a case under
slightly different facts, it clearly has not done so in the instant case.
The Claimant admits that he was not in conference with Management and that
he was in fact conducting Union business. No rule of the Agreement
guarantees an employee the right to eight hours pay simply because the
employee happened to punch in at the start of the shift and punch out at
the end of the shift. We find that the Carrier performed a legitimate time
keeping function under the narrow circumstances of this case. We find that
this time keeping function was not an act of discipline under the narrow
circumstances of the instant case. If the Claimant desired to contend
that the time spent away from his regular duties was compensable under Rule
36 (a) and (d), the proper procedure to follow should have been to file a
claim under the Grievance Procedure as set forth in Rule 36, presenting
proofs and argument in support of this theory. Such is not the theory of
the claim before this Board, and we are therefore compelled to deny this
claim.
A W A R D
Claim demiec.'.
Form 1
Pa ge 3
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
Award No.
7317
Docket No. 7167
2-PFE-CM-'77
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
By ~ /..
~osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated( at Chicago, Illinois, this 5th day of July,
1977.
'"Wo