Foam 1

Parties to Dispute:

Dispute: Claim of Employes:

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

SECOND DIVISION


The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee James F. Sceaxce when award was rendered.

Award No. 7859
Docket No. 7679
2-CaNw-CM-' 79

System Federation No. 76, Railway Employes'
Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0. _
(Carmen)

Chicago and North Western Transportation Company



M. Peterson
J. Gulb ranson
P. Johnson
E. Schadegg
K. Oestrieck

Findings:

January 26, 27, 28 and Febraary 1, 1977 January 26, 27, 28 and February 1, 1977 January 29, 177 February 1, 177 February 1, 1977

That the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company be ordered to compensate Ca,rmen M. Peterson, J. Gulbranson, P. Johnson, E. Schadegg and K. Oest rieck for one-half hours pay at straight time rate for the above identafa ed dates, and that the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company,, in the future discontinue its .practice of depriving caxrnen of compensation for meal periods while away from horse point on emergency road work.

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, 1931+.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dislratEs involved herein.


Form 1 Award No. 7859
Page 2 Docket No. 7679


Claimants were regularly assigned to the Rip Track facility of the Carrier at East Minneapolis, Minnesota, at the time of events germane to this case. On the daces in the claim, they were sent away from this facility to perform work on the line of road or other facilities. They returned to their home facility .prior to the end of the shift on each such date. The record will indicate that all claimants were afforded the opportunity to observe their lunch period 12:00 noon to 12:30 P.m.,, each day of the claim. Organization contends that the literal and unambiguous language of Article 10 supports the claimants demand for ,pay for the thirty-minute lunch period; the Carrier clai.rns to the contrary.












Form 1
Page 3

Award NO-7859

Docket No. 7679

2-C&Nw-Cry- · 79


The identical case has been argued and disposed of before by the Board in Award 178+. And, while the Carrier may choose to argue that it did not deal with the issue or. point, the fact is tha..tAward 4495 reiterated the precise rationale expressed in 178?+. 47e find no other preferred Awards on this .point, and while the Carrier raises several ,persuasive argument, otherwise, we do not find sufficient justification to upset such prior conclusions based upon the record presented and argued on the property.

A G7 A R D

Claims sustained.

Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUST11,1ENP BOARD

By Order of Second Division





Dated at Ci.cago, Illinois, this 28th day of February, 179.