Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8643
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8381
2-C&o-EW-'81
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Kay McMurray when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Parties to Dispute:
( Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company

Dispute: Claim of Employes:

1. That the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company violated the current
working agreements when Electronic Maintainer J. M. Turner was denied
compensation for eight hours pay at the time and one-half rate for
April 25, 1978, for transporting company material to and from Willard,
Ohio from his headquarters of Walbridge, Ohio, while attending Harris
Radio School.
2. That the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company be ordered to additionally
compensate Electronic Maintainer J. M. Turner eight hours at time and
one-half, which was his assigned rest day.
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.



There is no dispute with respect to the facts in this case. Claimant, Mr. Turner, was assigned as an Electronic Maintainer at Walbridge, Ohig, On Tuesday, April 25, 1978, one of his rest days, he was assigned to attend the Harris Radio School in Willard, Ohio, for job related instructions. As a means of transportation, Mr. Turner drove a company truck to Willard and back, consuming approximately ninety minutes travel time in each direction.

There is a letter of agreement signed by the parties which covers such matters. That agreement provides:


F'orm 1 Page 2

Award No. 8643
Docket No. 8381
2-C&O-EW-'81

In accordance with the letter of Agreement, Claimant was paid for four hours at his regular rate f®r the approximately three hours of travel.

The claim herein arises by virtue of the fact that some company material was carried in the truck which Mr. Turner was driving. The contention is that hauling company material is work and Claimant should be paid at the rate he would have received for working on his day off.

The record does not indicate the type of material hauled nor whether or not ~t: was off loaded. The Organization does not allege that Claimant did any work other than :._o drive the truck. Claimant's assignment on the day in question was to attend school and he was properly compensated in accordance with the letter of agreement. The Organization takes no exception to the utilization of a truck for transportation. It merely claims that since there was company material on the :ruck Claimant must be paid for a day's work. It does not point to any rule or contractual obligation for such payment other than the general requirement that an employee will be paid for work accomplished. We find that Claimant was properly compensated for attending the school. Based on the record he was not inconvenienced in any manner by virtue of the fact that company material was on the truck. Under such conditions we have no alternative but to deny the claim.

A W A R D

Claim denied.

Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONAL, RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


;osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of March, 1981.