.:f-
.rForm 1 NATIONAL RAILRQ4D ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9351
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
88'2
2-x&rr-cM-
183
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Carlton R. Sickles when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carman of the United States
Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada
( Kentucky and Indiana Terminal Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Emplayes:
1. (a) That Carman M. E, Geary was improperly relieved after 16 hours
an duty,
8
hours in wrecking service, depriving him from earning
an additional
one
and one-half hours at the double time rate.
(b) That the Cayman M. E. Geary was improperly deprived of a meal
period in accordance with the provisions of Rule ? (b).
2, Accordingly, the Kentucky and Indiana Terminal Railway should be
ordered to
(a) Compensate Cayman Geary one and one-half hours at the double
time rate in accordance with the provisions of Rule
7.
(b) Compensate Cayman Geary one (1) hour at straight time rate in
accordance with Rule
9.
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,
193.
This Division of the AdjustmentBoard has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Claimant's regular eight-hour shift ended at 7:00 A.M. He accepted call-out
for wreck crew work which started at approximately 7:00 A.M. (the exact minute
is in dispute but is not material here). He worked until 3:00 P.M. and was paid
for eight hours at time and one-half.
The wreck crew work continued for another hour and one-half after Claimant
was relieved.
Claimant alleges that he should have received a meal period after two hovers
of the wreck crew work or in the alternative be compensated for one hour at straight
time.
Form 1 Award No. 9351
Page
2
Docket No.
8872
2-K&IT-CM-'83
With respect to this issue, Claimant relies on Rule 7(b) which provides as
follows
"Employees shall not be required to render service for more
than two
(2)
hours without being permitted to go to meals.
Time taken for meals will not terminate the continuous service
period and will be paid for up to thirty (30) minutes."
In this case, the Claimant, in anticipation of the wreck crew assignment,
had taken a meal period from
6:30
A.M. to 7:00 A.M. for which he was paid as
part of his regular tour of duty. Under normal circumstances, he would not be
entitled to be paid for this meal period.
. Under these particular circumstances, the Claimant waived any right to
receive an additional meal period under the rule, and this portion of the claim
will be denied.
Claimant further alleges that once he has accepted a call for wrecking crew
service, he should not have been relieved by the Carrier until the entire task
was completed. Under Rule 7(f), the Claimant would have been paid at double time
for this hour and one-half since the Claimant would have already worked over
sixteen hours continuously.
Another carman was second out (after Claimant) on the rotary board. He
was called and arrived at
2:38
P.M. and worked until
4:43
P.M. He was paid the
minimum call for four hours' straight time.
The Claimant relies upon Rule 109 which reads as follows:
"Regular assigned wrecking crews, including engineer and
fireman, will be composed of carmen, and will be paid
straight-time rate for straight-time hours, and overtime
rates for all overtime hours for all time working, waiting,
or traveling."
This Board does not find that Rule 109 an its face supports Claimant's
contention that "once the claimant had been called, he had a right to complete
the assignment".
Rule 109 does not specifically make such a statement. Nor is Claimant's
interpretation a logical conclusion from the specific language of the rule. While
it provides for overtime rates for all overtime hours worked, etc., it does not
specify what overtime hours must be worked.
Award No.
6673
(Second Division) was cited as supporting the Claimant's
allegations. However, that Award was decided on the issue of the distribution
of overtime equally as applied to the specific rule and facts of that case.
Such a rule was not used in support of the Claimant's contention herein and,
therefore, is not at issue here.
Form 1
Page
3
Award No. 9351
Docket No.
8872
2-K&rr-crs-' 83
None of the rules cited support the Claimant's assertions. Without a
supporting rule, there was no ob ligatian on the part of the Carrier to keep the:
Claimant working until the wreck was clear.
A WAR D
Claim denied.
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTNENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
iris Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of January, 1983.