PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES UNION

(Formerly The Order of Railroad Telegraphers)




STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the Southern Railway, that:




EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Claimant, Mrs. R. T. Willis is regularly assigned to the position of Clerk-Telegrapher at Manassas, Virginia, with assigned hours of 11:30 P. M. to 7:30 A. M. She had an assigned work week beginning on Wednesday through Tuesday, with Monday and Tuesday as assigned rest days. The Carrier, by notice effective November 4, 1960, a Friday, directed that the new assigned work week of the position would begin on Friday with assigned rest days of Wednesday and Thursday.


In her assigned work week beginning on Wednesday, November 2, 1960, Claimant worked Wednesday, the 2nd Thursday, the 3rd, Friday, the 4th, Saturday, the 5th and Sunday, the 6th. Claimant was also required to work November 7th and 8th, Monday and Tuesday, and was paid eight hours pro rata time. Claim was made for the difference in pay between eight hours at pro rata time and eight hours at time and one-half which she was entitled to under the Agreement for the work on Monday, November 7th, and Tuesday, November 8th the assigned rest days of her work week which began on November 2, 1960.


The claim was appealed to the highest officer designated by the Carrier and declined by him.


POSITION OF EMPLOYES: The issue in this dispute is a question of whether the Carrier can designate two new rest days and thereafter require



13661-i1 491

The evidence of record does not support petitioner's contention that the agreement was violated, nor does it support the claim for penalty pay. For the reasons set forth herein, the claim should be denied in its entirety, and carrier respectfully requests that the Board so decide.


OPINION OF BOARD: This claim presents the same basic issue in concept and principle as was raised and decided today in Award 13660. Except that in this case claim is made for overtime pay resulting from the transitional change in rest days (See e.g., Awards 8077, 8088, 9243, 9548, 10497, 10530, 11036, 11991, 11992, 12319, 12799, 12911, 13113, among many others), the same basic rationale as set forth in the opinion in Award 13660 applies equally here. The claim is accordingly sustained.


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 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






    Claim sustained.


              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of THIRD DIVISION


              ATTEST: S. H. Schulty

              Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of June 1965.