NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Robert G. Simmons, Referee
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The above named employes are assigned to maintenance sections with headquarters at locations shown in the claim. The regularly assigned hours for maintenance employes are from 8:00 A. M., until 12:00 Noon and from 1:00 P. M., until 5:00 P. M., daily except Sundays. Sunday is a regularly assigned off day and no work is performed by maintenance employes on Sunday except in cases of emergency when being held subject to call in accordance with Rule 15 of the agreement.
There is an agreement between the parties, effective December 16, 1942, which among other things provides:
hold themselves in readiness for service.) We take the definite position that if these men had been instructed to remain in place for service if needed, Rule 15-(b) provides that they will only receive four (4) additional hours' pay every other week-end as compensation for time held subject to call and, therefore, there is no basis for the claim that the time and one-half rate should be allowed for each hour while subject to call.
Considering our second contention that "THE CLAIMANT EMPLOYES WERE NOT HELD SUBJECT TO CALL ON JULY 28TH, 29TH, AND 30TH AS CLAIMED, BUT WERE INSTRUCTED TO WORK THEIR REGULARLY ASSIGNED HOURS OVER THE WEEK-END", when it was anticipated that trouble would be experienced with the signals on Sunday, July 29th, these claimants were notified as follows.
Claimants Hagwood and F. C. Parham were the only two employees who literally complied with the instructions, that is, they worked from 8:00 A. M. until 12:00 Noon, and from 1:00 P. M. until 5:00 P. M. on the 29th. Claimants D. W. Hemingway and J. E. Thompson could not literally comply with the instructions due to the fact that trouble was experienced on their section prior to their regular starting time, and in view of the fact that they had worked approximately twenty (20) hours just prior to their regular starting time on Sunday, July 29th, then it would have been unreasonable for the Company to have required them to also work their regularly assigned hours on the date in question except in an extreme emergency. The remaining three claimants evidently interpreted the instructions as meaning that they were to simply hold themselves in readiness if needed. We, of course, do not understand how such an interpretation could have been placed on the instructions. The Committee took the position, when this matter was discussed in conference, that these employes did not have any assigned hours on Sunday, and therefore it was impossible for the employes to comply with the instructions issued. Concerning this matter, we find that Rule 19 of the, current Agreement is so clear in its meaning that there should not have been any doubt whatsoever in the minds of the employes as to just what was desired by the District Supervisor. Rule 19 in part is as follows:
Also, it has always been understood on this property that when employes are instructed to work their regular hours on Sunday, they are to observe the same hours as observed on other days.
It is the Carrier's position that, first, these men were not held subject to call from 5:00 P. M. July 28th until 8:00 A. M. July 30th and, therefore, are only entitled to pay in accordance with Rules 12 and 14 which were quoted in the Carrier's Statement of Facts, and if they had been held subject to call, they would only be entitled to pay in accordance with Rules 12 and 14, and in addition thereto four (4) hours at the straight time rate as provided for by Rule 15-(b).
These employes were all given the benefit of the doubt, in that they were paid four (4) additional hours at the straight time rate just as if they had been notified to hold themselves in readiness if needed.
OPINION OF BOARD: Under the provisions of Rule, 15 the employes in the Signal Department here involved are scheduled subject to call each alternate week end. They are free from call each succeeding week end from 12:00 Noon Saturday to 8:00 a.m. thefollowing Monday. In consideration of standing subject to call each alternate week end they are released after four hours service on the Saturday following the day held subject to call without 3290-10 632
loss of compensation. This arrangement is one by schedule, designed to have men subject to call each week end and to have men free from call each week end. The rule makes provision for compensation to those held subject to call under the schedule, but makes no provision for compensation to the men who on their free from call week end are called upon to perform services. Such a contingency is not within the language or evident purpose of the rule. The men involved in this claim were scheduled and subject to call the week end of July 21 and 22, 1945. Their free from call week end under the schedule was July 28, 29, 1945.
On the morning of July 28, 1945 the Supervisor wired the employees involved, "I want each of you to work regular bours over the week-end". This was a recognition that the Supervisor knew the men were free from call. There is obviously some vagueness in the exact meaning of the message. However, the Carrier's official, over whose signature the message was sent, advised that "as there are no regular assigned hours for a week end I expected every maintainer on the Virginia division to be in place and subject to call at any time during this week end". We accept the construction of the message which the party sending it put upon it.
These men were then ordered to stand subject to call for the entire period of their scheduled free from call week end. All did so, some working and others standing subject to call.
As pointed out, Rule 15 makes no provision for payment under such circumstances. Rule 13 provides "Overtime hours, either prior to or following and continuous with regular working period, shall be computed on the actual minute basis and paid for at the rate of time and one-half".
It seems to us that this decision both as to facts and rule is controlled by Award 1675. The Carrier says the contrary is true because "the scheduled agreements involved did not specifically provide how employes would be paid for stand by service * * * * and the claimants specifically requested to be off and were refused". The answers to these contentions are clear. Rule 15 provides how employees shall be paid for stand by service performed under the schedule. But this stand by service involved here was not a scheduled stand by service. Here the Claimants did not need to request to be off on the week end involved. The schedule, under Rule 15, gave them that right.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and
That the position of the employees is sustained. Payment to be made under the provisions of Rule 13, less any amounts actually paid by the Carrier.