Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8773
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8714
2-SCL-CM-'81
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Martin F. Scheinman when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada
(
( Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company

Dispute: Claim of Employes:





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.



The Organization contends that Carrier violated the Agreement when it did not compensate Claimant, J. F. Thomas, for three (3) hours of time lost on February 13, 1978 due to jury duty. Claimant regularly starts work at 7:00 a.m.; he was summoned to appear as a juror on the above date at 10:00 a.m.

Carrier argues that one (1) hour and thirty (30) minutes traveling time would be adequate for employes residing in the area where Claimant lived. Therefore, Claimant was advised to report for work from 7:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. at which time he would be released for jury duty. Carrier further reports that Claimant stated that it would not be worthwhile to report from 7:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.

Claimant was granted permission not to report at 7:00 as he requested. However, Claimant was told that he would be docked for the three (3) hours involved. The Organization maintains that Carrier violated Article III - Jury Duty when Claimant was not paid from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.


Form 1 Award No. 8
Page 2 Docket No. 8
2-SCL-CM-'81
"When a regularly assigned employee is summoned for jury duty
and is required to lose time from his assignment as a result
thereof, he shall be paid for actual time lost with a maximum
of a basic day's pay at the straight time rate of this position
for each day lost less the amount allowed him for jury service


It should be noted that another employe residing in the same general area as Claimant also served as a juror at the same place and beginning time as Claimant. Th7~s employe worked from 7:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and was given one (1) hour and thirty (30) minutes travel and preparatory time prior to reporting for jury duty at 10:00 a.m.

Claimant was advised by his foreman to.do the same but he chose not to report to work from 7:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. From the evidence presented, it is clear that Claimant did not adhere to the instructions given him. However, even if Claimant had reported to work from 7:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m., as instructed, he would have been granted the one (1) hour and thirty (30) minutes travel and preparatory time. For this reason, Claimant, in this dispute, is still entitled to this one (1) hour and thirty (30) minutes of travel and preparatory time and we do so find.








Attest: Executive Secretary
        National Railroad Adjustment Board


By !~"6=r'_.." 'r
semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

      Date at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of September, 1981.