Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
8458
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
8249
2-S00-CM-'80
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Rodney E. Dennis when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United
( States and Canada
Parties to Dispute:
(
( Soo Line Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. The Soo Line R.R. Co. violated Rule
7,
Paragraph
4
and
5
and Rule 10,
Paragraph
5
of controlling agreement and past practice, when proper
compensation of pay was not allowed when Superior, Wis. wrecking crew
were called for more than one hour before their regular assigned hours,
7:30
AM to
4:00
PM while working derailments at Denham and Isle, Minn.
July
4, 5, 7, 8
and
9, 1977.
2.
That accordingly the Soo Line R.R. Co. be ordered to compensate
the Superior Shops, Wis. wrecking crew members namely:
Carmen; Roger Pearson Wrecker Foreman
July 4, 5, 7
and
8, 1977
Rudy Aspdal Ground Crew
July 4, 5, 7
and
8, 1977
Kenneth Stein Ground Crew
July 4, 5, 7
and
8, 1977
Ronald Klindt Ground Crew
July
4, 5, 7
and
8, 1977
Patrick McGrath Ground Crew
July
4, 5, 7
and
8, 1977
William Groskreutz Engineer
July
4, 5,
and
8, 1977
Mark Steffen Wrecker Fireman
July 4,
and
7, 1977
Roger Johnson Cook
July 4, 5
and
9, 1977
in the amount of 1 hour and 10 minutes at the carmen's time and onehalf rate of pay each, for each date shown.
Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all
the evidence, finds that:
F orm l Award No.
8458
Page 2 Docket No.
8249
2-SOO-CM-'80
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 there.
On July 4,
5, 7,
8, and
9, 1977,
the Superior Wisconsin wrecking crew was
working a derailment at Denham and Isle, Minnesota. The eight members of the
wrecking crew (claimants in this case) were called more than one hour before their
regular assigned time,
7:30
a.m. to x+:00 p.m. Carrier paid Claimants at time and
one-half for all time worked prior to their regular starting time of
7:30
a.m.,
1k
hours each day. Claimants allege that they should have been paid a call under
the call rule of
2
and
2/3
hours at time and one half because they were called
and used less than two hours.
Carrier argues that Rule 10, paragraph
5,
covers wrecking crews. The
organization contends that Rule
7,
paragraphs 4 and
5,
cover claimants in this
case, whether they be wrecking crew members or not. The organization also argues
that a past practice of paying a call to carmen called out for less than two hours
work in similar situations has been observed by carrier. Carrier denies that a
bona fide past practice exists or has in the past existed on this point.
At the heart of this case is a dispute over contract interpretation. The
board concludes that in such a case, specific language takes precedent over
general language found elsewhere in the contract.
Rule
7,
Paragraph 4, states that employes who are called or required to
report to work will receive four hours straight time pay as a minimum call payment.
It is very clear why such a clause was written into a contract. The organization
wanted to guarantee its members that if carrier called them to work on an
emergency basis or for a special job, they would at least receive four hours pay
for their trouble. This concept is understandable and has become accepted
practice in most industries, both public and private.
For whatever reason, however, the parties to the schedule agreement here in
dispute did not choose to include every employe under Rule
7-4.
They wrote a
special rule to cover wrecking service employes. Rule 10, paragraph
5,
is the
specific rule in this instance. The parties clearly specified in Rule 10 that
wrecking service employes will be paid for all time working beyond the recognized
straight time hours at time and one half. Why the parties agreed to such a
system need not be discussed. The fact is that they did. They wrote this
clause in a contract and they must live with it.
If this board were to adopt the organization's position, it would ignore the
clear words of Rule 10 that specify how wrecking service employes will be paid.
This Board has no authority to make such a finding.
Form 1 Award No.
8458
Page
3
Docket No.
8249
2-SOO-CM-`80
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAIIROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By
o emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated Chicago, Illinois, this
8th
day of October,
1980.