Third Division
Paul Samuell, Referee
DISPUTE.-"Shall Signal Maintainer L. J. Fay be paid at the overtime rate from il : 15 p. m., June 7th, to 6: (Hl a. m., June 8th, 1933?"
FINDINGS.-The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence finds that-
The carrier and the employee involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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 parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.As a result of a deadlock, Paul Samuell was called in as Referee to sit with this Division.
Mr. L. J. Fay is a regularly assigned Signal Maintainer with home station and railroad headquarters at St. Maries, Idaho. The territory definitely assigned to Signal Maintainer Fay extends eighteen miles east of St. Maries and twelve miles west of St. Maries, a total of thirty miles.
He is responsible for the efficient operation of all the signal apparatus on that territory and in the performance of his duties he uses a track motor car to reach any point where work is to be performed and to return to his headquarters each and every night.
Mr. ray's regular working hours are from 8 a. m. to 12 noon and train 1 p. m. to 5 p. m. with one hour for lunch, these hours having been established by bulletin covering this maintainer's position and territory.
Air. Pay had completed his regular tour of duty at 5 p. m. June 7th, 1933, and was called for emergency service at 5: 15 p. m. to repair telegraph line trouble between St. Maries and Calder, which latter point is located twenty-three miles east of St. Maths. The line trouble in question was the result of storm conditions and normally would have been cleared by the telegraph department employees.
He iii rived tit Calder at 11: 15 p. m., June 7, and was instructed to tie up for the night at that point, and resume service at 6 a. m. June 8, which lie did, and after making the necessary repairs enroute, arrived at his home station, St. Maries, at 5 p. in. on the same date, and was thereupon released from duty. For such services Mr. Fay received compensation at his regular hourly rate for time worked during his regularly assigned tour of duty (8 a. m. to 5 p. m. on each day) and at punitive overtime rate from 5:15 p. ,n. to 11:95 p. m. June 7. and from 6 a. m. to 8 a. m. June S. He claimed compensation at time and half rate from il: 15 p. m. .tune 7 to 6 a. in. June 8 at overtime rate, but claim was denied alti,ough carrier made reimbursement for expenses for meals and lodgings incurred while away from home station.
Claimant relies on Sections (f) and (v) Rule 2 to support his claim, which Sections are as follows:
"Time of employes so notified will begin at the time required to report and end when released. Time of employes se called will begin at the time called and end at the time they return to designated point at home station.
"An employe so called less than two (2) hours before his regular startin, will be paid at time and one-half time until his regular starting time, and thereafter at straight time for the regular hours."
while the carrier asserts that Sections (k) and (1) of Rule 2 supports its position that claimant was paid the proper compensation. The sections read as follows:
"Sec. (k). Hourly rated employees sent from home station to perform work and who do not return to home station on the same day will be allowed time for traveling or waiting in accordance with following section (1) of this rule. All hours worked will be paid for-straight time for straight-time hours, and aver-time rate for overtime hours. Actual expenses will be allowed at the point to which sent if meals and lodging are not provided by the Company or if camp cars to which employes are assigned are not available."
"Sso. (1). Employes (except those monthly rated) who (to not return to Home station on the same day, when not in camp cars and traveling by direction of the management will be allowed actual time for traveling or waiting during the regular working hours. Actual time, not to exceed eight (S) hours, art the straight-time rate, from the time required to report to the time of arrival tit the point to which sent, will be paid its full compensation for traveling or waiting between the cud of the regular hours of one day and the beginning of the regular hours of the following day when sleeping accommodations are not available. Actual expenses but no time will be allowed for (raveling or waiting between the end of the regular hour, of (me day and the beginning of the. regular hours of the following day when sleeping accommodations are available. '-this applies to traveling maintainers only except as mentioned in preceding section (k)."
Tho carrier maintains that since claimant Fay, an hourly rated signalman, was reimbursed for rncal wad lodging expenses incurred while away from "borne stotimr", was lurnished sleeping accommodations and performed "no service" bet-~,·ccn 11:10 =). m. and 6 a. nl., that Fay is not. e;nal~·d to such time and anc-had: rate; that Seeli:ra (f) Rule 2 is not a cornpe::s;rLion rule and that it simply rr.xrns that if "rclcased" r.t a point not at this "home station" the ernpk;)-ces time shall end when so released, but if he be required to "return to designated point at home station", his compenr:athon shall in such event be computed continuously until released at such home station.
The rules above quoted are obviously in sharp conflict and ambiguous. They should be further negotiated and clarified between the parties for the purnosq of avoiding future disputes and to the end that an lurtlue finaudal Inn(lll shall not be imposed upon the carrier when the time clement is a greater and more important factor than existed in this particular case.
Because of the peculiar circumstances which exist in this dispute, especially the intensity of the work to be performed in a short period of time under unusual conditions and in an emergency, we are of tire opinion that tire benefit of doubt should be resolved in favor of the employee with the understanding