Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJLBTMENT BOARD Award No. 8434
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8093
2-SCL-CM-'80
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee George S. Roukis when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 42, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
( Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company violated terms of the
controlling Agreement by their failure to pay the Augusta, Ga. wrecker
crew for the time they were improperly placed on rest from 10:00 p.m.
January 12, 1977, until 7:00 a.m., January
13, 1977.
2. That accordingly, the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company be ordered
to compensate Carmen L. C. Reynolds, C. E. Gallahar, J. E. Hair, A. P.
Russell, and R. L. Hobbs for nine
(9)
hours at overtime rate, and
Carmen V. L. Holland and T. S. Sturdivant for eight (8) hours at
overtime rate, less one (1) hour and thirty (30) minutes which was
allowed on the property but did not satisfy the claim.
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 facts in this case are essentially undisputed. The Augusta Wrecker and
Crew assigned at Augusta, Georgia were called at 3:30 P.M- on January to depart
for a derailment on the Georgia Railroad at Bulkhead, Georgia, which had the main
line blocked. The Wrecker arrived at Greensboro at 10:00 P.M. which is approximately
thirteen (13) miles from Bulkhead and the crew was placed on rest until
7:00
A.M.
Carrier later allowed one (1) and one half ('k) hours overtime from 10:00 P.M. to
11:30 P.M. because the wrecker equipment was switched during this time, but denied
the claim for the overtime compensation. It contends that the wrecker crew was in
need of rest and significantly delayed traffic needed to pass before the wreck
outfit could occupy the track and clear the wreckage. Claimants' dispute this
position and contend that they were not in need of rest since they had traveled
less than one hundred (100) miles to reach Greensboro and were, in fact, well rested
when they arrived at this location. They argue that they had not performed an.y
wrecking work prior to the rest directive and then waited until Carrier permitted
them to work on the wreck the next morning when two (2) crew members were assigned
work at 6:00 A.M. and the others were assigned at
7:00
A.M.
Form 1
Pago P
Araard No.
8434
Docket No.
8093
2-SCL-CM-'80
In reviewing this case, we recognize the diversii:y of Second Division
rulings on this issue, as well as Carrier's pragmatic concern for overtime economics,
but we believe that the intended purpose of Rule
8,
Emergency Road Service, is to
relate relief from duty to actual working periods and not to time waiting or
traveling after the work has been completed (See Second Division Award
4115).
We agree with Carrier that Rule
8
does not specify that a person can be
relieved on the road only after he has commenced work at a derailment or emergency
situs, but we cannot disregard our definable holdings an analogous type questions.
Admittedly, Carrier would have used this crew had the main line not been cleared.
They were sent to the derailment location to perform prompt emergency services.
A relief or rest break pursuant to Rule
8
(b) would have been initially unlikely.
In Second Division Award
6133
we held:
"that the purpose of the relief provide is to provide a minimum
rest period whereby proper rest could be secured to fit them
for the continuation of the tasks to which they are assigned."
UL
this instance, Claimants were not assigned to perform tasks at 10:00 P.M.
or were provided relief within actual working periods. They were in effect
waiting for an assignment that did not materialize until 6:00 A.M. and 7:00 A.M.
respectively and as such, entitled them to overtime for all time. waiti consistent
with Rule
8
(a). We will sustain the claim.
A W A R D
Claim sustained.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
BY
semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated t Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of August,
1980.
NATIQVAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division