Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
8707
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
8491
2-AT&SF-EW-'81
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Parties to Dispute:
( Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
(1) That the Carrier erred and violated the contractual rights of Mr. Sam
Jones by failing to reimburse him for expenses incurred in obtaining
safety glasses.
(2) That, therefore, Mr. Jones be compensated one (1) hour at his pro rata
rate of pay and five dollars (5.00) for fitting glasses.
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.
At issue here is whether the Carrier is required to reimburse the Claimant
for 5.00 which he paid to have prescription safety glasses fitted and for one
hour of his time in so doing. The Organization relies on Rule 46 (a), which
reads as follows:
"Reasonable protection will be afforded the health and
safety of the employee."
Also involved is a bulletin: to employes issued February 11,
1977,
which reads
in part as follows:
"Effective March 1,
191'7,
all personnel, except those who
work exclusively in offices, will be required to wear
approved eye protection while on duty, other than when
inside offices, lunch rooms, and washrooms.
Those employes not required by the rules to wear corrective
lenses will be given cme pair of clear industrial safety
glasses with breeze catcher side shields. In addition, on
request, another pair of industrial safety sunglasses (with
truecolor lenses) and breeze catcher side shields will be
Form 1 Award No. 8707
Page 2 Docket No. 8491
2-AT&SF-EW-'81
"furnished. Glasses damaged or broken will be replaced or
repaired free of charge when the damaged pair is turned in.
Lost glasses will be replaced at actual cost, which will be
charged to the employe.
Those employes who wear corrective lenses will have the
option either to acquire a pair of prescription industrial
safety glasses with breeze catcher side shields, or wear a
pair of monogoggles provided by the Company. For those who
choose the industrial safety glasses with breeze catcher side
shields, the Company will pay the cost of the frames, case,
side shields and lenses on one pair only. Eye examination
and fitting cost will be the responsibility of the employe.
Any future replacements of industrial safety glasses will be
the responsibility of the employe, except the Company will
continue to pay for the cost of the frames as it has done in
the past
...."
The organization argues that, because the Carrier has apparently deemed the
wearing of safety glasses at virtually all times to be "reasonable protection"
for employes, the cost involved should be borne by the Carrier.
In support of their positions, the parties refer to the history of Rule
46
(a); the degree to which the Carrier pays for other items of safety equipment;
and previous awards concerning these matters. The Board, however, need go no
further than the facts in the instant claim. The Organization is correct in
concluding that the wearing of safety glasses may be determined as "reasonable
protection". The essential point, however, is that the Carrier has provided eye
protection without cost to the employes -- whether in compliance with the rule or
possibly in excess of its requirements.
In the case of those requiring prescription lenses, the Carrier provides
monogoggles without cost to the employes. Such employes are provided with an
option of their own choosing -- the use of prescription industrial safety glasses.
Under this option, the Carrier also pays a large share of the cost, omitting only
"eye examination and fitting cost". No provision is made to pay for the time
involved in such fitting.
The Claimant decided to take this option. He was not required to do so. He
could have accepted the "reasonable protection" of the monogoggles. Thus, the
Board can make no finding that the cost of fitting and/or time spent in such fitting
is within the mandate of Rule
46
(a). This award is concerned only with the
specific circumstances outlined above.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Form 1
Page
3
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
Award No.
8707
Docket No.
8491
2 -AT&SF -EW-'
81
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
By
emarie Brasch - Add in strative Assistant
Dated a Chicago, Illinois, this 6th day of May,
1981,