Foam 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
7416
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
7320
2-SOU
CM-t77
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee James C. McBrearty when award eras rendered.
( System Federation No. 21, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
( Southern Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That under the controlling Agreement the Danville, Kentucky
wrecking crew members were improperly relieved from duty and
were denied duty and/or compensation for a portion of their
regularly assigned hours while in wrecking service July
6-8,
1975
at Sunbright, Tennessee and July
28-31, 1975
at Milepost
317.1
near Soddy, Tennessee.
2. That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to compensate members of
the Danville, Kentucky wrecking crew for the portion of their
regularly assigned hours denied them while improperly relieved
as follows:
C. E. Westerfield 15~ hours - straight time
W. F. Cooper ~ hours - straight time.
P. E. Rigsby 11 hours - straight time
M. C. Ha11
IT'
hours - straight time
M. D. Selby 12 hours - straight time
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 ox employes involved in this
dispute are respectively carrier and eiaploye 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.
Panties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
The instant case involves the payment of employees while in wrecking
service.
Rule
9
(Road Work-Overtime) of the Consolidated Agreement effective
March 1,
1975,
reads in pertinent part:
Form 1 Award No.
7+16
Page 2 Docket No.
7320
2
-SCU-CM-
'77 ,~;,
"Wrecking service employees will be paid in accordance
with Agreement dated December 71,
197+
reproduced
beginning on page
89
of this Agreement."
The new wrecking service Agreement provides in pertinent part:
"WHEREAS practices vary at the respective points on
Carriers parties hereto in the treatment of wrecking
service anployees; and
"WHEREAS it is desired that there be one Agreement with
respect to treatment of wrecking service employees
uniformly interpreted and a lied on Carriers parties
hereto. Underscoring added
XXX
(2)(a) If wrecking service employees are relieved while
away from home station and permitted to go to bed fox five
(5)
or more hours, such relief time will not be paid for;
provided that in no case shall they be paid for a total of
less than eight
(8)
hours each calendar day, during which
such irregular service prevents the employees from making
their regular daily hours at home station. The time on duty
of
employees so relieved when away from home station shall, -
except as provided in paragraph (c) of this Section
(2),
terminate upon their arrival at the place of lodging
provided by the company.
(b) At the expiration of the relief time provided for in
paragraph (a) above, time on duty for wrecking crew members
shall start from the time called to continue performance
of wrecking service and such employees shall be paid
accordingly from the time called as provided in Section
(1) hereof."
Rule
156(c)
of the controlling consolidated Agreement effective March
1, 1975,
reads:
"(c) This Agreement and the implementing agreement of the
same date contain all the rules governing rates of pay and
working conditions applicable to the employees represented by
the organizations party hereto. AV practice of agreements
not in conformance or contained herein are hereby abrogated."
Underscoring added
Form 1
Page
3
Award No.
7+16
Docket No. 7320
2-SOU-CM-177
Claimants base their claim in the instant dispute on the contentions
(1) that the practice of paying the Danville, Kentucky wrecking service
employees eight
(8)
hours for each day they were away during their regular
first or second shift working hours at home station, regardless of whether
they were on duty or relieved from duty for five or more hours of rest in
bed, was supported by the second paragraph of former Rule 10 and other rules
of the former Agreement of March 1, 1926; and (2) that the new Wrecking
Service Agreement dated December 11, 197+, did not nullify or change the
former practice and method of payment to Claimants.
However, we find that Carrier is not required to pay Claimants under
previously existing past practices allegedly sanctioned by former Rule 10.
The old Rule 10 expired on the effective date of the new Wrecking
Service Agreement, and Claimants were properly paid pursuant to the presently
existing. Rule 2(a). We must emphasize to Claimants that different past
practices do not supercede a presently existing rule. Therefore, we must
deny the claim.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By
osemarie
Brasch
- Adminis native Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 9th day of December, 1977.
ll~
-.4000,