Both of the claimants are entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of Rule 31 which reads:

"CALLS

The basis of payment in Rule 30 (a) will also apply to time worked which is not continuous with a regularly assigned work period, with a minimum payment of 2 hours and 40 minutes at the time and one-half rate. Employes called for service on regular rest days and holidays and for work outside their regular assignment on regular work days, will be paid from the time they are notified to report until the time they return to their headquarters station."

We respectfully request that the claim be allowed.

CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: On Sunday, November 6, 1960, 3:00 P.M., Supervisor Kelly was advised of a stripped track joint at Mile 331, Birmingham Division. He immediately contacted his motor car driver and together they proceeded to Mile 331 so that it might be determined whether or not it was necessary to put in a piece of rail; and if so, approximately how much labor would be needed. Upon arrival it was learned that a change in temperature had caused the joint to go back together and all that was necessary was for two bolts to be placed in the joint to hold it togetherThese two bolts were fit in place by the motor car driver.

POSITION OF CARRIER: The nature of the duties of the track supervisor are such that it is his responsibility, together with the Division Engineer, to know the condition of the trackage under his jurisdiction. It was for the purpose of determining the condition of the track at Mile 331 that Supervisor Kelly made the trip on his motor car. Had extensive repairs been necessary, he would have arranged for such force as needed to do the work. However, since it was just a case of fitting a joint, all that was necessary was for the motor car driver to apply two bolts and tighten them. He is an employe covered by he agreement and it is common practice on the Birmingham Division that all motor car operators in going over the supervisor's. territory, with or without the supervisor, replace bolts, tighten bolts, drive spikes, and perform any other small tasks that come to their attention and knowledge in their tour of duty.

We believe the claim to be rather ridiculous. However, the work was performed by an employe covered by the agreement. It is carrier's position the agreement has not been violated. The claim, therefore, should be denied.

OPINION OF BOARD: On Sunday, November 6, 1960, a rest day for the Claimants, Supervisor Kelly, an employe of the Carrier excluded from the Scope of the Agreement, was informed either that there was a broken rail or a stripped track joint (and for this case it makes no difference which); together with his motor car operator he proceeded to the location, discovered that the only repair necessary was fitting a joint by applying two bolts and tightening them; the motor car operator made this repair.

It is the contention of the Organization that Supervisor Kelly and his motor car operator performed work belonging to the Claimants.

It is the contention of the Carrier that: Supervisor Kelly performed work which is not exclusively reserved to the section foreman, but which is part of his normal function as a supervisor to know the condition of the trackage

under his supervision; and that it is a common practice on this Division that all motor car operators replace bolts, tighten bolts, ere. as such tasks come to their attention during their tour of duty.

The Organizaion has referred to Award No. 4946 (among others) as supporting of its contentions; the Carrier has referred to Award No. 10703 (among others) as supporting of its contentions. Both awards throw light on the issue herein, and both define one of the limits of proper activity for a Supervisor outside the Scope of the Agreement; the line drawn in each is at virtually the same place. Says Award 4946: "The inspection to determine the extent of the repairs to be made and the manner of their making is a section foreman's work, but an inspection to determine if the damage requires immediate correction or otherwise is not the exclusive work of a section foreman. (Emphasis ours.) And Award No. 10703 says: ". . it is the contention of the Carrier that the Supervisor went to the scene for the purpose of ascertaining whether the switch needed repairs, as he properly had a right to do and that the functions performed by him, under the circumstances in removing the sand to inspect the switch were proper functions for an officer of the Carrier; that his sweeping of the sand from the switch was purely incidental to his responsibility in determining whether repairs were necessary... " "It was entirely proper," said the Board in that case, "under the situation presented here, for the Track Supervisor to inspect the switch for a determination of whether repairs to the switch were needed . . . .

Carrier's Statement of Facts recites that after being notified of a stripped track joint, Supervisor Kelly and his motor car operator "proceeded to Mile 331 so that it might be determined whether or not it was necessary to put in a piece of rail; and if so, approximately how much labor would be needed." -And Carrier stated in Position of Carrier: "It was for the purpose of determining the condition of the track at Mile 331 that Supervisor Kelly made the trip on his motor car. Had extensive repairs been necessary, he would have arranged for such forces as needed to do the work. However, since it was just a case of fitting a joint, all that was necessary was for the motor car driver to apply two bolts and tighten them:' (Emphasis ours.)

But the question of whether the Agreement was breached by the Supervisor's activity does not turn on the amount of work required to make the repair, but on whether he was inspecting to determine whether any repair was needed at all, in which case he was performing an inspection proper for an official excluded from the Scope, or whether he was inspecting to determine the extent of the repairs to be made and the manner of their making, in which case he was performing work which belonged to the section foreman. This question is answered by the Carrier's presentation quoted above.

The fact that the amount of work to be done, both in the inspection and in the repair, was small, does not alter the requirement of Rule 3o (f). Award 12844, cited by both parties, says: "Although the Scope Rule for Foremen does not describe work, it is well established that work content for employes covered by the Agreement is determined by the work such employes customarily do." Repair of the track in this section is the regular work assignment of the section foreman and the laborers. The motor car operator was not the regular employe assigned to the section crew; what repair work he may have done during his travels on the motor car was incidental to his basic duties and not usually performed under the circumstances described here, where a call came in indicating that repairs might be needed at a particular place.

The Agreement was violated.

AWARD