Form 1 NATIONAL RkILROAD AiiJUS'? ME1;T BOARD Award No. 7+89
SECOTSD DIVISION Docket No. 7395
2-rIP-Ew-' 78



Parties to Dispute:

Disyate: Claim of Employes:

System Federation No. 2, Railway Employes'
Department, A. F. of L. - C. 1. 0.
(Electrical Workers)

Missouri Pacific Railroad Company



That accordingly, the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company compensate Telephone Maintainer W. L. LaFarxa tS~ro and seven-tenths hours (2.7') at the punitive rate for October 13, 1975.

2.

Findings:

The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole retard and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the e-nploye or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and eznploye 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.



The Claimant is employed as a Telephone Maintainer in the Communications Department of the Missouri I=acific Railroad. On October 13, 1975, the Data Supervisor in St. Louis, Missouri called the Claimant at 6:00 um, one hour before the usual starting tune fox his work day, and instructed Claimant to go to Pine Bluff, Arkansas and clear trouble in Carrier's data set. The Claimant, following instrzctions, went to Pine Bluff and pexfomed tests on Carrier's equipment. Claimant's tests indicated that the Carrier's equipment was opera~tiv e, but 'chat the Bell Telephone equipment, which was used in conjunction with Carrier's equipment, was inoperative.
Form 1 Award No, 7489
Page 2 Docket No. 7395
2-MP-hla- t 78

The Claimant filed a claim for two and seven-tenths hours (2.7') for October 13, 1975, for the work he performed ,prior to the usual hours of his work day. However, the claim for two and seven-tenths hours was removed fran his time roll by the Communications Supervisor. As a result of the Carrier's action, the Organization has processed this claim on the basis that the Carrier violated the Agreement effective June 1, 1960, specifically Rule 1 - Section 1(a), Rule 2(a), Rule 3(a) Rule 4(a), (d) and (g).

The instant claim is essentially similar to the claim that was before the Board in Award No. 7+88. Based on the reasoning of that Award the instant claim must be denied.






                              By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

                                r


B $,~e ,.. .~"`__ M
      semarie Brasch - Acunini.stxative Assistant


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of. April, 1978.