STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Order of Railway Conductors, Pullman System, claims for and in behalf of Conductor W. J. Schoeps, Chicago-East Dist., hat The Pullman Company violated Rules 13 and 22 of the Agreement between The Pullman Ccmpany and its Conductors, when:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is in evidence an Agreement between The Pullman Company and Conductors in the service of The Pullman Company, dated September 1, 1945, revised January 1, 1948.
This dispute has been progressed in accordance with the Agreement. Decision of the highest officer designated for that purpose, denying the claim, is attached, as Exhibit No. 1.
The facts necessary to a determination of this dispute are, as follows:
Under date of April 6, 1950, Conductor Schoeps was assigned to Santa Fe Trains 3 and 4, designated as Line 45, Chicago to Los Angeles and return.
The "Operation of Conductor" Porm covering Line 45, effective April 2, 1950, shows that the Conductor reports in Chicago first day, 7:30 P. M. and is released in Los Angeles 7:15 A. M. fourth day. Elapsed time 61 :45 hours. Less relief en route 12:00 hours. Time on duty 49:45 hours. The Operation of Conductor form also shows that the Conductor, on the outbound trip, is scheduled to be off duty from 2:00 A. M. to 6:00 A. M. each of the three nights en route. Deductions for relief periods en route are made under the provisions of Rule 13, which reads, as follows:
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, a Pullman Conductor, brings this claim because of an asserted interruption of his rest period when a train conductor awakened him. It is undisputed that Claimant went off duty for his rest period at 2:00 A. M. and was undisturbed until 4 A. M. At that time Claimant asserts that he was awakened by the train conductor for a five minute discussion with respect to an accommodation occupied by a passenger which was not correctly shown on the railroad ticket pouch. There is some conflict in the record concerning the subject of that discussion, brought about by a letter involving the incident which letter Carrier obtained from the train conductor. However, that letter was obtained about six weeks after the incident and is equivocally worded indicating an understandingly hazy recollection on the part of the writer. We are, therefore constrained to resolve that conflict in favor of the Employes' version of the incident. Some question has also been injected with respect to whether or not the discrepancy in the railroad ticket pouch was caused by error on the part of the Claimant. However, that was effectively refuted by the uncontradicted testimony of the Claimant on the hearing held with respect to this grievance.
The determination of this claim turns upon the proper interpretation of Rule 13 of the Agreement between the parties, effective September 1, 1945, and revised effective January 1, 1948. Rule 13 provides for deductions for rest (on trips of twelve hours or more) when the spread of the trip includes the hours from midnight to 6 A. M. (during which hours the rest en route is to be confined) limiting said deduction to 4 hours for each night in regular assignment and to 4 hours for the first night and a maximum of six hours for each night thereafter in extra service. The rule then further provides in part pertinent to the resolution of this dispute as follows:
It is the contention of the Employes that from 4:05 to 6:00 A. M. the Claimant did not receive two consecutive hours of rest and therefore he is entitled to pay for that two hours. We are unable to agree with this contention of the Employes. The quoted paragraph of Rule 13 makes it very clear that no deduction may be made for rest unless within the scheduled rest period the conductor is afforded at least two consecutive hours of release for sleep. That was afforded to the Claimant. For any periods of time before or after those two consecutive hours have been afforded to him, any part of the scheduled rest period not obtained shall be paid for at his hourly rate. That is the clear, unambiguously expressed intent of the rule. It is apparent, from the record that Claimant obtained the one hour and 55 minutes of his scheduled rest period from 4:05 A. M. to 6 A. M. The part which he did not obtain was the five minutes from 4:00 A. M. to 4:05 A. M. for which we find that he is entitled to be paid in accordance with the formula established by the applicable pay rule. In that he has not been paid for that five minute period, the Carrier is in violation of the Agreement. .
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; 5579-12 871