THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
In handling the case on the property the Employes relied on Award 7828. As indicated in the dissent by Carrier members, the basis for the decision is not clear, but it appears to be on the basis that the extra work required was during a portion of the hours which claimant was assigned to work on Sunday. That condition is not involved in the present case. Also, the rules involved were different from those in the present case, and the work required was extra service in addition to assigned telegraph service in the office involved. It was not a case where the office was closed during certain hours on the employe's rest day and he was called during such hours to provide telegraph service for a short period as in the present case. In the Carrier's opinion, the award does not support the present claim.
In the present case claimant was properly paid for actual time consumed with a minimum of two hours at time and one-half rate. The rules do not support the claim for a minimum day at time and one half under the circumstances involved, and Carrier respectfully submits that the claim should be denied.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant B. H. Gleason was assigned regular hours for being on and off duty: on relief assignments on Sundays and Mondays from 7 A. M. to 3 P. M. and on Tuesdays and Wednesdays from 3 P. M. to 11 P. M. and, to fill out the week, on Thursdays from 11 P. M. to 7 A. M.; Friday and Saturday were his assigned rest days. The relief positions he occupied on regular assignment each required a Sunday assignment of the regular week day hours of each such position.
On Saturday, December 5, 1959, and on a series of dates enumerated in the Statement of Claim, each of which was one of his assigned rest days, Claimant Gleason was required to work for less than 8 hours; for his work on these rest days the Carrier paid him under Article 6-4 of the Agreement. The Employes claim that he should have been paid under Article 7, Section 1 (m), II, A (1).
Carrier asserts that the Claimant, because he occupied a regular relief assignment, did not occupy a position requiring a Sunday assignment of the regular week day hours; and that Claimant had no regularly assigned week day hours. The Employes' position is that Claimant's regularly assigned week day hours included all twenty-four in the day; that Claimant occupied a position requiring a Sunday assignment of the regular week day hours of that position; that he was required to perform work on a series of his assigned rest days and was, therefore, entitled to pay for those days under Article 7, Section 1 (m) II, A (1).
The record supports the Employes' position. The Agreement makes no distinction between regular relief employes and other regular employes as to the application of this rule. Award No. 176, Special Board of Adjustment No. 100, cited by the Carrier, was apparently decided on the basis that while required attendance at an investigation is a service by an employe which requires compensation by the Carrier, it is not the kind of work compensable under the same rules as regular and normally assigned duties; in any case, Award No. 176 does not discuss the basic issues involved in this case before us. 13006-10 702