NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

THIRD DIVISION

(Supplemental)




PARTIES TO DISPUTE:



CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC

RAILROAD COMPANY


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company that:




EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Carrier maintains two shifts at its "UD" Interlocking at Joliet, Illinois. The first shift Signal Maintainer has regularly assigned hours of 6 A.M. to 11 A.M. and 12 Noon to 3 P.M. and the second trick Signal Maintainer works from 3 P.M. to 11 P.M. This leaves the interlocker unmanned from 11 P.M. until 6 A.M.


In accordance with Rule 18 of the current Signalmen's Agreement, Signal Maintainers at an Interlocking Plant where two shifts are worked, such as "UD" at Joliet, will protect calls for emergency service occurring nearest their respective shift. On the date the instant violation occurred, Mr. H. Shank was regularly assigned to fill the first shift at "UD" and Relief Signal Maintainer Barry was regularly assigned to fill the second shift. This meant that under Rule 18 Signal Maintainer Barry would be called for emergencies occurring between 11 P.M. and 2:30 A.M. and Signal Maintainer Shank should be called for emergencies between 2:30 A.M. and 6 A.M.


At 12:15 A.M., December 21, 1960, a signal failed and Signal Maintainer Shank was called to correct the trouble. He corrected the signal failure and was released at 1:15 A.M. This was contrary to the provisions of the Signal-



13625-8 $6$

2. On December 21, 1960, Signal Maintainer Barry was called at about 1:30 A.M. account signal breaker trouble at UD Intrelocking Plant, Joliet, this trouble was located and corrected at approximately 2:00 A.M. Because of the extreme cold weather at the time Signal Maintainer Barry was instructed to remain on duty as standby in case of another failure. He stayed until 6:00 A.M. He was paid on a minute basis for all time on duty.








CARRIER'S POSITION: Signal Maintainer Barry was properly called under Rule 19. He was paid for all time" when held on duty longer than two (2) hours and forty (40) minutes * * ' on actual minute basis" in line with Rule 18. There was no violation.


The Employes simply contend that when Signal Maintainer Barry got the breaker working he should have been released (no rule support for this) and another Maintainer, the claimant, called in to perform the standby service which Barry performed while on duty and under pay (no rule support for this). The Employes' position completely lacks merit or rule support of any kind. Rules 18 and 19 have been interpreted and applied as was done in this case for many years. The Organization just does not have rule support for their fabricated theory.


The right man was called and paid "when held" just like the rule says. There was and is no requirement to release him and call another man.


The Carrier cannot visualize this claim being sustained, but it should be pointed out to the Board this claim is for punitive rate for time not worked. This question has been decided time and again-the proper payment for time not worked is pro rata.


OPINION OF BOARD: The agreement between the parties herein provides in Rule 18 as follows:

13625-9 869











A Mr. Barry covered the second shift and the Claimant covered the first shift. The hour that divided the time between Mr. Barry and the Claimant was 2:30 A.M. Barry was called at 1:30 A.M. to correct a circuit breaker actuating. Mr. Barry corrected this trouble before 2:00 A.M. however Mr. Barry was instructed to stay on duty until 6:00 A.M.


The employes state in their submission that, "The part of Rule 18 directly governing this dispute is the part reading 'Where two shifts are worked, each maintainer of the plant and/or territory involved, when available, will protect calls in emergency service occurring nearest their respective shifts.' "


The employes contend that Mr. Barry completed the work for which he was called out before 2:30 A.M. However, that is not relevant. Even if the employes are correct, the standby service was commenced before 2:30 A.M.


The express provisions of the example of Rule 18 quoted above, which is under the part of Rule 18 the employes say govern, allow the Carrier to retain Mr. Barry until 6:00 A.M. at which time Claimant started his regular shift.


FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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;


That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and



13625-10 870










Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of May 1965.