STATEMENT OF CLAIM: (a) Claim that Signalman Horace Keefe shall be allowed one minimum call (two hours and forty minutes, at the time and one-half rate) for call received at 6:00 P. M., Monday. January 10, 1949; and one minimum call for call received at 5:00 P. M., Tuesday, January 11, 1949.
(b) Claim that Assistant Signalman R. E. Maloney shall be allowed one minimum call (two hours and forty minutes, at the time and one-half rate) for call received at 5:00 P. M., Monday, January 10, 1949; and one minimum call for call received at 5:00 P. M., Tuesday, January 11, 1949.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The regularly established working hours of Signalman Horace Keefe and Assistant Signalman R. E. Maloney are from 8:00 A. M. to 4:30 P. M. daily, except Sundays and holidays, with thirty minutes for lunch.
On January 10, 1949, Signalman Horace Keefe was called at his home at 6:00 P. M., one hour and thirty minutes outside of his regularly established working period, and directed to report for extra duty at 9:00 P. M. that date.
On January 11, 1949, Mr. Keefe was called at his home at 5:00 P. M., thirty minutes outside his regularly established working period, and directed to report for extra duty at 8:00 P. M. that date.
January 10, 1949, Assistant Signalman R. E. Maloney was called at his home at 5:00 P. M., thirty minutes outside his regularly established working period, and directed to report for extra duty at 9:00 P. M. that date.
January 11, 1949, Mr. Maloney was called at his home at 5:00 P. M., thirty minutes outside of his regularly established working period, and directed to report for extra duty at 8:00 P.M. that date.
There is an agreement, effective May 1, 1947, between the parties to this dispute.
Your Honorable Board has held on many occasions that when the rule is clear and unambiguous the express wording of the rule will apply. A number of leading cases were quoted in our Docket CL-5797 with the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks now before the Third Division.
Conference was never requested by the Employes on this case, therefore, the Carrier requests the right to make further reply after the Ex Parte Submission is received.
All of the above has been handled in correspondence submitted herein or in telephone conversation with the designated representative of the Employes.
OPINION OF BOARD: Signalman Horace Keefe and Assistant signalman R. E. Maloney worked regular established hours from 8:00 A. M. to 4:30 P. M. daily except Sundays and holidays, with thirty minutes off for lunch.
Because of icy conditions existing prior to and on January 10, 1949 Keefe received a telephone call at 6:00 P. M. to report for extra duty at 9:00 P. M.
On the same date Maloney received a telephone call at 5:00 P. M. to report for extra duty at 9:00 P. M.
On January 11, 1949 the icy conditions continued to exist. Keefe and Maloney received a telephone call at 5:00 P. M. to report for extra duty at 8:00 P. M.
Keefe and Maloney respectively claim one minimum call of two hours and forty minutes at time and one-half rate for each day called.
The Claimants filed notice of intent to submit the dispute to this Board on November 27, 1951.
We cannot agree with the contention of the Carrier. The claims were handled on the property and when no Agreement could be reached, the Carrier was notified by letter dated June 8, 1949 from the Grand Lodge that the claims would be submitted to the National Railroad Adjustment Board, Third Division, as promptly as possible, and that all communications regarding the claim should be handled with the Grand Lodge. In the light of this letter the Carrier could not be placed in a position of prejudice so as to work a disadvantage to it. The Carrier knew that these claims were to be submitted.
The Carrier further contends that the Claimants were "notified" and not "called" under Rule 12(c), admitting that if they were "called", then the claims would be valid, but if "notified", then the claims should be denied. 5864-to 597
The Claimants contend that notification as used in Rule 12 (c) can only be given during the regular assigned working hours of the employes. If the Carrier needed the employes for extra work and they were contacted after their regular assigned hours, then they were "called" under the rule and are to be paid from the time of call.
We are required to take the Agreement as it is written and cannot rewrite it by interpretation nor by interpretation put in that which the parties have left out.
That portion of Rule 12(c) "Time of employes notified in advance will begin at the time required to report * ' * " does not require notification during the regular assigned working hours. Under the Agreement as written, notification can be given' at a reasonable time in advance of the hour to report for extra duty. The overtime rate to be computed from the hour of reporting. We cannnot read into the last cited portion of Rule 12 (c) the contention of the Claimants.
That portion of Rule 12(c) "Time of employes called will begin at the time called * * *." requires that the Carrier shall pay from the time of the call when the employes must report immediately. If the employe is not given a notice in advance with a reasonable length of time prior to the hour of his required reporting for extra duty, then he is "called" under Rule 12(c).
Since the Agreement does not deflne either "called" or "notified", we must give these words their common everyday meaning.
"Call" is defined in Webster's Dictionary-"To summon to a particular duty, office, or employment." "Summon" is defined-"To issue a call to convene. To bid to come. To send for." Call therefore denotes immediacy or urgency. "Notified" is defined by Webster's Dictionary "To give notice of. To inform." Notified therefore denotes a warning or a notice of more formal nature, with time elapsing between the notice and the action to be taken by the notice.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employe involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employe 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