Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11843
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11629
 90-2-88-2-114
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Edward L. Suntrup when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood Railway Carmen/Division of TCU PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 1. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company violated Rule 8 of the controlling Agreement and a Memorandum of Agreement dated May 1, 1980, which was created to stop the overtime abuses.

 2. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company be ordered to comply with the guidelines set forth in the pn property Agreement and to compensate Carman J. Flores in the amount of thirty (30) minutes at the straight time rate.

 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 employes 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.

A Claim was filed by the Organization on the grounds that the Carrier had been in violation of Rule 8 of the Agreement when it required a Carman to make a round trip in the company truck during a lunch period. The Carman in question was paid at the straight-time rate. According to the Claim, the work should have been paid at the overtime rate to the Claimant who was "...first out on the Overtime Board" on the date the alleged Agreement violation occurred.

 When the Carrier denied the Claim it did so in view of the provisions of Rule 6 of the Agreement which it argued permits payment for work during the lunch hour at the straight-time rate.
 Form 1
 Page 2

 Award No. 11843
 Docket No. 11629
 90-2-88-2-114

 The focus of the instant Claim is on the overtime rights of Carmen on the Overtime Board. Resolution of the Claim centers on whether the Carrier is required to go to such Board when it requires work of the type in question to be done during the lunch hour, or whether it is contractually permissible for it to go to the provisions of Rule 6.

 The Rules in question state the following:

Employes required to work during, or any part of, the lunch period, shall receive pay for the length of the lunch period regularly taken at point employed at straight time and will be allowed necessary time to procure lunch (not to exceed thirty minutes) without loss of time.



(a) When it becomes necessary for employes to work overtime they shall not be laid off during regular working hours to equalize the time.

 (b) Record will be kept of overtime worked and
 men called with the purpose in view of distri
 buting the overtime equally. Local Chairman
 will, upon request, be furnished with record."

 According to the Organization the Carrier was also in violation of the Local Truck Driving Agreement at Houston, Texas, effective May 1, 1980. This Agreement states, in pertinent part, the following:

 "Effective May 1, 1980 the 7:OOAM to 3:30PM Truck Driver Job No. 4-20 will be discontinued. The job will be re-bulletined as Carman on the Repair Track and other Carman duties, Monday thru Friday, 7:OOAM to 3:30PM, Rest Days Saturday and Sunday, effective May 1, 1980.

 A truck driver overtime board will be established 7:OOAM, May 1, 1980. The truck drivers that are on this overtime board will be rotated monthly according to seniority. If a person desires to be placed on this truck
 Form 1 Award No. 11843
 Page 3 Docket No. 11629
 90-2-88-2-114



A review of the General and Local Agreement provisions at bar shows that neither Rule 8(a) and (b), which deals with overtime equalization, nor the Local Houston Agreement, which deals with the establishment of a truck driver Overtime Board, bar the Carrier from going to Rule 6 when it wishes a Carman to do work during a lunch period. The latter Rule permits, for this short time-frame, with qualifications as stated therein, the Carrier to pay Carman the straight-time rate. The Claim appears to want to elicit an Award from the Board whereby the Carrier would be barred from going to Carmen at straight-time rate when it is a question of driving a pick-up truck during the lunch period. The Board cannot find such intent in the language of either Rule 8 nor the Local Agreement and it must, accordingly, deny the Claim. As the moving party, the Organization has not sufficiently met its burden of proof in the instant case.






                    00


Attest:
        Nancy J qVer - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of April 1990.