Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8010
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7652
2-SCL-CM-'79
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Arthur T. Van Wart when award was rendered.
System Federation No. 42, Railway Employes'
Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company
1. That the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company violated terms of
the controlling agreement by failing to properly compensate Carman
nI. E. King, Jr.
2. That the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company be ordered to compensate
Carman N. E.Iiirtg, Jr. at Cayman's overtime rate June 29,
July 13,
and August 10,
1.976
and at Carman's double time rate for June
30,
July
J_4,
and August 11,
1976.
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, 193+.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
There were five
(5)
Foremen (Supervisors) assigned at Portsmouth,
Va. When arty of such Foremen are on vacation, a Carman is set up temporarily
to fill each such vacation vacancy.
Claimant, a regularly assigned Carman at Portsmouth, with rest days
Tuesdays and Wednesdays, was set up temporarily to fill vacation vacancies:
"Monday, June 28, 1970 through Friday, July 2, 1976,
Mondays July 12, 1976 through Friday, July 16, 1976,
Thursday, July 22, 1976 through Monday, July 26, 1976.
Thursday, July 29, 1976 through Monday, August 2, 1976.
Monday, August 9, 1976 through Friday, August 13, 1976."
Form 1 Award No. 8010
Page 2 Docket No,
7652
2-SCZ-CM-'
79
The instant claim involves days whereon Claimant had worked as a
Foreman, but, because such days were also the rest days of his regular
Cayman assignment, these claims were filed. As an example, on Claimant's
first scheduled rest day as a Cayman, Tuesdays of the weeks involved, i.e.,
July 29, July 13, and August 10, claim was made for eight
(8)
hours pay
at time and one-half rate. While on June 30, July 14, and August 11,
1976
which are Wednesdays (the second rest day of Claimant's Carman assignment)
claim is submitted for eight
(8)
hours at double time rate.
On each date involved in these claims, Claimant has already been paid
eight
(8)
hours at the Foreman's pro rata rate.
The L'znployees allege a violation of the following rules, which for
brevity sake, are not reproduced other than its identification or caption,
except where a portion thereof may have relevance:
Rule l "Hours of Service" - which concerns hours of assignment for
a regular work day and establishment of assigunents, and et-c. Paragraph
(k) thereof provides:
"(k) OVERTItU~ PROVISIONS - Provisions and existing rules
which relate to the payment of daily overtime shall remain
unohang
ged. work in excess of forty (PTO) straight tile
hour s in any work week shall. be paid for at one and one-half
times the basic straight rate extent where such -vaork is
performed by _an eznolo~·ee due to mov3enz; from one_ass:i.gnment
to another or to or fromi a furlough list, or where days off
are being accuxrnnulated under paragraph (g) of this Rule 1,
Employees who work more than five days in a work week shall
be paid one and one-half times the basic straight time rate for
work on the
sixth
and seventh days of their work weeks,
except where such work is performed by an employee due to
moving from one assignment to another..." (Underscoring
supplied,
Rule
3 - "Overtime
Continuous Service, Rest Days and Holidays"
Rule 15 - "Seniority and Filling New Jobs and Vacancies"
Rule 29 - "Foremanship - Filling Temporarily" reads:
"Should an employee be assigned temporarily to fill. the
place of a foreman he will be paid his own rate - straight
time rate for straight time hours and overtime rate for
overtime hours - if greater than the foreman's rate;
if it is not, he will get the foreman's rate. Said
' positions shall. be filled only by
mechanics
of their
respective craft in their departments (see
1952
better
Agreements - Appendix 0)."
Form 1 Award No. 8010
Page
3
Docket No. 7652
2-sCZ-CM-'79
Rule 115 - "effective Date and Changes" ,
Appendix N - "Memorandum of Understanding" reads:
"It is hereby understood and agreed that when an employee under
the Shop Crafts Agreement is called from the overtime board
to protect another employee's assignment the following will
govern:
(a) if there is a. change of shifts involved tine and one half
will b2 paid for the first
shirt.
(b)
...
. e o
(d) When an employee is used temporarily to fill the place of
a foreirLan or supervisor, paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) above
wall
govern. Except an eaupJ_oyee so used, until the conditions
and rest days of the foreman or supervisors assigtunents apply
to him, will be pa_i.d
has
o~m rate, straight time for straight
time hours and overtime for overtime hours if it is greater than
the foreman or suyervisor's rate. If it
as
not, he will get
the foreman or supervisor's rate.
This understanding applies to employees used temporarily to fill
the place of a foreman who is off for some reason arid not to
employee regularly assigned to foreman or supervisors regular
relief days
...
...
Examples 1 and 2 would apply in like manner to an employee working
temporarily as a foreman or supervisor under paragraph (d)
except the rate to be used when working as a foreman or supervisor
will be the foreman or supervisor's rate, or the employee's rate
so used whichever is greater, until the conditions and rest
days of the foreman or supervisor's poasation apply to him.
..o
Article V of the National Agreement, dated April 24, 1970 reads:
"A11 agreements, rules, interpretations and practices, however
established, are amended to provide that service performed by
a regularly assigned hourly or daily rated employee on the second
rest day of his assignment shall be paid at double the basic
straight time rate provided he has worked all the hours of his
,assignment in that work week and has worked on the first rest
day of his work week, except that emergency work paid for under
the can rules will not be counted as qualifying service under
this Rule, nor will it be paid for under the provisions hereof."
Form 1 Award No. 8010
Page
4
Docket No.
7652
2-SCZ-CM-'79
Paragraph 20(a) of the vacation agreement states:'
"(a) except as otherwise provided in this Agreement the Carrier
shall not be required to assume greater expenses because of
granting a vacation then would be incurred if an employee were
not granted a vacation and was paid in lieu therefore under the
provisions hereof. However, if a relief worker necessarily is
put to substantial extra expense over and above that which the
regular employee on vacation would incur if he had remained on
the job, the relief worker shall be compensated in accordance
with existing regular relief rules."
The issue framed herein is, simply, whether Claimant is entitled to
overtime payments for service perfonred while teyrx3rarily assigned as a
Foreman on such days that otherwise are coincidentally the designated rest
days of his regular assigznz.ent as a Cap-ma.n.
The answer thereto is "no". The Board finds no newts between the facts
herein and the rules cited in support of these cl.ai.xns. Claimant was not
called from the overtime board, hence Appendix Pt had no application hereto.
Claimant assumed the conditions of the Foreman assignment that he was
fil'Ling, including the -rest days thereof. We find no connection between the
tern (2) assignments in support of these claims.
Our Award PTo.
58.5
is similar, if not identical, to the instant case.
There, a Carman was assigned to fill the temporary vacation vacancy of a
Supervisor, Repair Track Leader. As a consequence of filling such vacancy
such Claimant Caiman worked Thursdays and Fridays, May 11,, 12., 18 and 19,
1967
which days were also the rest days of his regular assigned Cayman
position. Because of this coincidence or similarity said Cayman claimed
eight
(8)
hours pay for such days at time and half. We held there:
"We find no rule of the Agreement which was violated by Carrier
in assigning Claimant to the temporary vacancy; nor, do we find
in the record made on this property, that Claimant was required
to fill the position against his will. In the absence of
such evidence it must be conclusively presumed that Claimant
willingly accepted the temporary assignment to the higher rated
position. Claimant, therefore, assumed the work week and its
rest days during the period he filled the temporary vacancy.
We will deny the claim."
As there, the instant Claim will also be denied.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Form 1
Page
5
Award No. 8010
Docket No.
7652
2-scz-cry- ~ 79
NATIONAL RA.IZROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
r
r~ i
12
sema.xie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated al Chicago, Illino'i.s, this 25th day of
July, 1979·