Third Division
Lloyd K. Garrison, Referee
FINDINGS.-The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The Carrier and the employees 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, Lloyd K. Garrison was called in as Referee to sit with the Division as a member thereof.
There is in evidence The Pullman Company Rules Governing Working Conditions for Conductors effective December 16, 1923, and Mediation Agreement of March 1, 1928.
As will be seen, Mr. Kenworthy's claim contains no details and Is for no specific amount. Claims ought not to be presented to the Board in such form. However, in the revised submission of the claim to the Board, there appeared a statement of the number of hours with respect to which it is alleged that pay should be made, to wit, twenty-one hours and twenty-five minutes. Thus the claim may properly be considered as foe an exact amount.
It may still be objected that the claim does not enumerate the specific Items of short payment which go to make up the twenty-one hours and twenty-five minutes. This omission, as a matter of form, may properly he criticised. However, before its submission to our Beard, the claim was submitted to the Conductors' Board of Adjustment and the itemization of the claim appears in those proceedings and is made a part of the record before us. Thus the Board has sufficient information before It upon which to analyze the claim, and should proceed to do so unless the form of the presentation has prejudiced the rights of the carrier. But we think that the carrier has not been misled because the carrier's own submission in this case contains an item-by-item description of the claim. The following breakdown and analysis of the claim is taken in every detail from the carrier's own submission, to which we have added a column indicating the amount of each particular claim which we think is properly allowable. For convenience of Identification in the discussion of the claims, which will appear hereinafter, we have divided the claims into "A", "B", "C", etc., corresponding to the groupings made by the carrier In its discussion of these claims.
On the basis of the principles already established in Docket PC-105, Award No. 259, of this Division, the claim should be sustained subject to the following adjustment:
In Claim "B" above, only 30 minutes should be allowed. For the trip Philadelphia to New York and return the carrier allowed half a day on the trip or day's service basis. Since the return journey from New York to Philadelphia was deadhead oil a pass, it would not fall under Rule 3, and therefore should have been paid on the hourly basis and not the day's service basis. Only the trip in line from Philadelphia to New York should have been paid on the day'a service basis. That would have resulted in an allowance of a quarter of a day or two hours. The conductor would then have been entitled to two hours and 30 minutes on tile hourly basis for the deadhead trip from New York to Philadelphia. The total would be four hours and 30 minutes. The conductor was paid for four hours and therefore is entitled to only 30 minutes.
Claim "C" shows nil over-payment of 1 hour, which should be deducted from the claim.
In Claim "E·" the item of two hours and 15 minutes for deadhead with equipment, from Harrisburg to Mt. Gretna oil July 22, should be for two hours. according to the elapsed time as shown in the record. The remaining amounts asked for under Claim "E" are accurate so that Claim "E" sbould be allowed less 35 minutes.
In Claim "G" the conductor was allowed one day oil the trip service basis under Rule 3 for the line service between Pittsburgh-Atlantic City-Washington, plus additional but unstated compensation appearing on the August pay roll.. The conductor claimed a half day for that portion of the trip which was paid for fu August, and therefore this half day claim should be eliminated. There remains a claim for an additional day held for service in Atlantic City front the morning to the evening of the 31st. The entry was originally made by the conductor on his time sheet as a layover, and we are unable to conclude from the record to what extent, if any, a claim for held for service would be proper. Because of the fact that a portion of the trip was paid for in August and because the amount so paid in August does not appear in the record, we do not know what total allowance teas made for the Pittsburgh-Atlantic City-Washington run or to what extent, if any, such payment included a layover in Atlantic City.
After making these deductions from the conductor's claim, the total to which ale is entitled, as shown above, is three hours and ten minutes over and above what he was paid.
Conductor Kenworthy is entitled to additional pay for service performed in, the month of July 7932 to the extent of three hours and ten minutes.