NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: * * * for and in behalf of G. R. Tillman who is now and for some time past, has been employed by the Chicago-Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company as a Sleeping Car Porter operating out of Chicago, Illinois.
Because the Chicago-Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company did, through Superintendent of Dining and Sleeping Cars, M. H. Bonesteel and Vice-President-Personnel G. E. Mallory, deny the claim filed by the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters originally under date of October 9, 1962, for and in behalf of Mr. Tillman, in which the organization contends that Mr. Tillman should have been paid the sum of $17.53 for services performed by him during the month of August, 1962. And further because refusal to pay the above mentioned sum was in violation of the rules of the Agreement between the Chicago-Rock Island and Pacific Railroad and its Sleeping Car employes represented by the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, particularly Rules 2, 3, 4 and 7.
And further, Mr. Tillman should be paid the above mentioned sum of $17.53 as it is contended by the above mentioned claim.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Your petitioner, the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, respectfully submits that it is duly authorized to represent all employes of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company, classified as Sleeping Car Porters, and in such capacity, it is duly authorized to represent G. R. Tillman, who is now and for a number of years past, has been employed by the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company, as a Sleeping Car Porter operating out of the Chicago District.
Your petitioner further sets forth, that under date of October 9, 1962, a claim was filed under the provisions of Rule 24 of the Agreement presently in effect covering wages and working conditions of Rock Island Sleeping Car Porters, setting forth that Tillman was short-paid the sum of $17.53, in connection with the service performed by him during the month of August, 1962.
For these reasons we respectfully request your Honorable Board to deny the claim of the employes.
It is hereby affirmed that all of the foregoing is, in substance, known to the Organization's representatives .
OPINION OF BOARD: The essential facts are not in dispute. Petitioner contends that Claimant is entitled to $17.53 additional pay for the month of August, 1962. During that month Claimant was paid 32 hours deadheading at the pro-rata rate. Petitioner states that Claimant should have been paid the 32 hours at the punitive overtime rate. The issue is whether deadheading time, under the Agreement, is time worked for the purpose of applying punitive overtime pay.
The identical issue, involving the same parties, the same Claimant and the same Agreement, was considered and determined by this Division in Award 11275 (Stark). In that Docket PM-12885 Petitioner cited Rules 4 and 7 above quoted, as well as other Rules of the Agreement, and made the same arguments which are before this Division in the present dispute. We held in Award 11275 that deadheading is not time worked under Rule 4 and that 11850-6 975
"the principal function of" Rule 7 "is to permit crediting of a limited amount of deadheading time, when properly authorized, for purposes of straight-time wage payments." Overtime payments, we said, are determined by the provisions of Rule 4.
We find nothing palpably wrong with these Awards. Their findings and conclusions are affirmed.
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 Employee 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