Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7355
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7238
2-LT-USWA-'77
The Second
Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr., when award was rendered.
( United Steelworkers of America
( A. F. of L. - C. T. 0.
Parties to Dispute:
(
( The Lake Terminal Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Ealoyes:
(1) That the Carrier unjustly, arbitrarily,'and with.
no
contractual
basis ordered Car Repairman, L. Tollet, to leave work at approximately x.:00 P.M. on December
31, 1975,
thus causing
him
to lose
a day's pay on that day and also compensation for January 1,
1976,
which is a paid holiday.
(2) That, accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to compensate Mr. Tol;let
as penalty for that action, eight
(8)
hours pay at the Car
Repairman's rate for December
31, 1975
and January 1,
1976,
in
addition to all other earnings.
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 reported for work approximately one-half hour late and was
denied the opportunity to work for the remainder of his work shift. The
Organization claims he was improperly denied the opportunity to work.
Rule 23(a), cited by the Organization, is not applicable here in that
the Carrier did not
annul
or cancel a work assignment, there being
no
reason
to believe that the Claimant would have been refused work had he reported
for his full shift.
Further, Rule
3,
Section 1(c) is riot supportive of the Organization's
position. This section reads:
Form 1 Award No. 7355
Page 2' Docket No. 7238
- 2-LT-USWA-'77
"F~nployees reporting fox work later than their regular
starting time will be paid only for actual time vrorked."
This rule directs the method of payment for less than a full shift, but
cannot be construed to compel the Carrier to permit employes to work a
partial shift under any circumstances.
More relevant is Rule 22, rich reads as follows:
"Any employee who reports for work at his regular starting
time, and who has riot been notified on the day before, or
before leaving home for his place of employment on the day
involved, that his services will not be required shall be given
a minimum of four (4) hours work or be paid for four (4) hours
work at his regular hourly rate." (Emphasis Added)
This rule clearly envisages the right of the Carrier to find that an
employe's services "will not be required" in a given day. It calls fqr a
penalty of four hours' pay ox work fox an employee "who reports for work
at his regular starting time".
In the present case, the Claimant did not report for work at his regular
starting time and thus has no claim for pay (whic!", in any case would be
four hours, not more).
The Board finds no basis for the Organization's theory that the
Carrier's refusal to permit the Claimant to work was a form of discipline.
Under the collective bargaining agreement and under the rules cited,
the Board finds no bar to the action taken by the Carrier. Award No. x+150
(uohnson) is in point here. -
Since the result is. that the Claimant did not work on December 31, it
follows under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, that he is
not entitled to pay fox January 1, a holiday.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
i~tATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Crder of Second Division
os arie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of September, 1977.