F orm 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
8986
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
8456
,-'-NRPC-EW-'
82
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when &Word was rendered.
( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Parties to Dispute:
( National Railroad Passenger Corporation
Dispute: Claim of Employes
(1) That the Carrier erred and violated the contractual rights of Mr.
Bursese when they failed to properly compensate him for services
rendered on Thursday, June
15, 1978
and Friday, June
16, 1978.
(2) That, therefore, he be compensated twelve (12) hours at his pro rata
rate of pay.
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.
Claimant is an Electrician regularly assigned to a shift from
8
a.m. to
4 p.m. with rest days on Thursday and Friday. Along with a number of other
employees, the Claimant was directed to attend an electricians' training school
for a period of one week, and he complied. The school was in session from
8 a.m.
to
4
p.m., Monday through Friday. The Claimant was paid at straight-time rate
of pay for this training program.
The Organization argues that the Claimant should have been paid at the rate
of time-and-one-half for Thursday and double time for Friday, claiming that this
is required by Rule 13, which reads in part as follows:
"RUIE 13
OVERTIME
All work on
holidays, rest days, or outside of regular
bulletined hours will be paid for at the rate of time and
one-half except as may be provided in rules hereinafter set
out.
T °jx"x~;
1 Award No.
8986
age.
r:'
Docket No.
8456
2 -NRPC -EW-' 82
(a) Service performed by regular assigned hourly or daily
rated employees on the second (and third) rest day of their
assignments shall be paid at double the basic straight-time
rate provided that they have worked all the hours of their
assignment in that workweek and have worked on the other
rest days of their workweek, except that emergency work
paid for under the call rule (Paragraph (c) hereof) will
not be counted as qualifying service under this rule nor
will it be paid for under the provisions hereof..."
Arguments by the Carrier as to _de minimis and equitable estoppel are
unconvincing. As to the merits, the Carrier argues principally that the training
sessions are not properly encompassed by the words "work" or "service" as employed
in Rule 13 and that premium pay for the two days in question is thus not required.:
By its actions, however, the Carrier concedes the Claimant's entitlement
to straight-time pay for this week of training, and so the various awards cited
by the parties in reference to an
X
wage payment for such time need not be
reviewed.
Further, reference to cited cases as to whether employes should be paid
(and at what rate) for traveling to instrt%*ion programs, disciplinary
investigations or participation in legal proceedings are also not dispositive
of the issue here. Nor does this involve periods of training _in addition to
the number of hours in a week normally assigned.
It is further noted that the claim does not encompass a demand for payment
on Saturday or Sunday of the week of training, which days would otherwise
have be= A01gtt,the Claimant's regularly assigned schedule.
The particular question here, as the Board views it, is quite different.
Tt may be stated this way: For the specific purpose of one week of training,
during which the employe receives pay for the regular n%nber of hours he would
otherwise have worked, may the Carrier change the employe's schedule from five
days with rest days of Thursday and Friday to a week running Monday through
Friday?
It is understood, as emphasized by the organization, that the employe has
certain rights to the regular schedule to which he is assigned, at least in
preference to other employes of the same classification. But the Board finds
no rule cited which would prevent the Carrier from directing the employe to
adjust his schedule of hours for one week in order to participate with others
in the training program. This indeed represents a change in rest days for one
week for the employe. However, the Boards finds (and the Organization has cited)
no rule to prohibit thi;; for the limited purpose involved herein.
Once this is established, the question of premium pay for rest days (i.e.,
days beyond a five-day schedLile) becomes moot.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Form 1
Page 3
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
Award No.
8986
Docket No.
845E
2-NRPC-Ew-'82
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
By
R rie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of March, 1982.