NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
David Dolnick, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it required the
employee named in Part (2) of this claim to attend rules classes
(instructions on and discussion of new Carrier rules) on either March
17 or 24, 1962 and refused to compensate said employes for such time
consumed in the Carrier's service and, as a consequence thereof-
(2) Each of the following named claimants be allowed pay at his
respective time and one-half rate far the number of hours indicated
after each respective name.
NAME CLASSIFICATION DATE HOURS
J.
w.
Taylor Pipe Gang Foreman 3-17-62 4
J. J. Sheffield Bridge Gang Foreman 3-17-62 8 (160 miles)
G. L. Russell Bridge Gang Foreman 3-24-62 4
R. M. Long Carpenter Gang Foreman 3-24-62 6 (108 miles)
J. A. Bateman Carpenter 3-24-62 4
D. L. Pellicer Carpenter 3-24-62 4
C. R. Yelvington Carpenter 3-24-62 4
C. G, Lampp Machine Operator 3-17-62 4
O. H. Bennett Machine Operator 3-24-62 4
L. V. Langsten Extra Gang Foreman 3-24-62 6 (56 miles)
Wilmer Scott Machine Operator 3-24-62 9 (60 miles)
E. E. Green Machine Operator 3-24-62 4
J. M. Skinner Extra Gang Foreman 3-24-62 4
C. A. Beaver Assistant Foreman 3-24-62 4
G. M, Taylor Multiple Tamper Operator 3-24-62 4
0. Nipper Multiple Tamper Operator 3-24-62 6 (80 miles)
J.
w.
Lloyd Machine Operator 3-17-62 6
C. Hall Assistant Foreman 3-24-62 4
C. E. Red Machine Operator 3-24-62 5 (50 miles)
S. Simpson Machine Operator 3-17-62 8 (260 miles)
D. H. Holder Machine Operator 3-24-6211 (80 miles)
[7257
14181-2
726
NUMBER OF
NAME CLASSIFICATION
DATE HOURS
R. D. Beville Machine Operator 3-17-62 6 (50 miles)
A. L. Hutchinson Machine Operator 3-17-62 6 (30 miles)
A. 0. Merritt Machine Operator 3-17-62 6 (60 miles)
Doyle Rouse Extra Gang Foreman 3-17-62 11 (236 miles)
C. B. Rouse Section Foreman 3-17-62 11 (236 miles)
Howell Peavy Section Foreman 3-24-62 4
A. B. Langham Section Foreman 3-24-62 4
A. L. Wood SectionForeman 3-24-62 8 (200 miles)
G. E, Handley Section Foreman 3-24-62 5 (12 miles)
E. C. Stokes Asst. Section Foreman 3-24-62 5 (12 miles)
C. E. Jordon Extra Gang Foreman 3-24-62 5 (12 miles)
J. V. Dobbs Assistant Foreman 3-24-62 11 (236 miles)
Wilmer Scott Asst. Section Foreman 3-24-62 6 (80 miles)
J. R. Devinney Asst. Section Foreman 3-24-62 5 (12 miles)
Robert Ming Section Foreman 3-24-62 8 (120 miles)
C. A. Derr Machine Operator 3-24-62 6 (80 miles)
L. G. Blackwell Welder 3-17-62 4
B. H. Hobenstein Welder 3-17-62 4
H. R. Russ Machine Operator 3-17-62 9 (200 miles)
L. M. Stevens Section Foreman 3-17-62 9 (240 miles)
E. V. Fretwell Asst. Section Foreman 3-17-62 4
L. A. Matusick Section Foreman 3-17-62 4
LaRue Harvey Asst. Ex. Gang Foreman 3-17-62 5 (60 miles)
G. A. Durrance Machine Operator 3-17-62 4
R. T. Hilliard Extra Gang Foreman 3-17-62 8 (160 miles)
J. P. Brown Machine Operator 3-17-62 10 (278 miles)
E. H. Griner Section Foreman 3-24-62 4 (This em.
ploye was in hospital in St. Augustine, but was instructed by
Carrier to leave hospital and attend classes in St. Augustine
on March 24, after which he returned to the hospital.)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Carrier issued instructions
reading:
"FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY
St. Augustine, Florida
March 6, 1962
File 567-1
TRANSPORATION RULE BOOK: Operating Rules effective
April 1, 1362.
TO ALL CONCERNED:
A new issue of Operating Rules will become effective April 1,
1962. This issue will supersede the Book of Rules of Transportation
Department effective December 1, 1923, Automatic and Interlocking
Signal Rules dated March 1, 1926; Rules and Instructions Governing
th: Terminal Test, Operation and Train Handling of Air Brake, Air
Signal and Train line Steam Equipment on Locomotive Cars, effective
July 1, 1945, and all bulletins, or other instructions inconsistent therewith.
It will be necessary that all Engineering Department employes
in any way concerned with the operation of trains attend one of the
14181-18
742
amination, even though, as here, it is a biennial affair. Carried to
its logical conclusion, that view would entitle employes to pay for
time and effort spent in learning rules.
In Award 487, the Third Division, with Referee Arthur M. Millard, stated:
"There is no doubt but that some inconvenience and sacrifice of
time was occasioned the claimants by the requirements of the carrier and the examination of the employers to determine their familiarity with the Book of Rules and Regulations of the Operating
Department; at the same time such examination was as much to the
advantage of the employes as to the carrier, inasmuch as it constituted a means of certifying or re-certifying the employes to the
requirements of the positions of responsibility they held with the
carrier."
Also see Awards Nos. 2508, 2828, 3302 and 4181 of the Third Division.
In Award 3150, the Second Division of the National Railroad Adjustment
Board expressed the following fundamental principle pertinent to this dispute:
"We have consistently held that employes required to take tests
are not performing work or service under the rules. Even though they
are inconvenienced thereby we cannot sustain a pay claim in the
absence of a rule providing compensation for time so spent" (Emphasis ours.)
Also see First Division Awards Nos. 3182, 5213, 5464, 6263, 6846, 7663, 12206,
13913, 15035, 17382, 188110 and 19003.
For the reasons stated the claims are without merit and should be denied.
OPINION OF
BOARD: The issue is whether the Carrier violated Rule
19 of the Agreement which reads as follows:
"Employer notified or called for service outside of and not following and continuous with established hours will be paid for such
service at time and one-half rate, with a minimum of two (2) hours
at time and one-half rate."
Employes argue that pay for "service" as provided in Rule 19 is addi-
tional time beyond any "work" which an employe may perform when so
called. It is service other than manual labor. Thus, Claimants performed
"service" when they were required and did attend classes for instruction and
discussion of Carrier's Operating Rules on their rest days.
The record shows that new Operating Rules were to become
effective
April 1,
1962. These would supersede Rules which became effective December
1, 1923; those dated March 1, 1926; those which became effective July 1,
1945. Carrier instructed Claimants and all other Engineering Department
employes to attend classes on any of three designated Saturdays prior to
April 1, 1962, for the purpose of instruction and discussion of the new rules.
There are many Awards of this Division dealing with the subject at hand.
Each, however, must be considered on the basis of the facts and the Rules
pertinent to the dispute.
14181-I9
743
Award 7577 is particularly relevant to the issue raised by the Employes.
The Rule which was applicable in that case provided as follows:
"A regularly assigned train dispatcher who is required to perform service on the rest days assigned to his position will be paid
at the rate of time and one-half for service performed .on either or
both of such rest days." (Emphasis ours).
There, too, the Employes contended that the Claimants "rendered service for
the benefit of the Carrier in accordance with Carrier's instructions during
hours other than those within their respective regular assignments". We
held that attending rules re-examination classes is not "work" or "service"
justifying a claim for pay under that Rule.
The required attendance for instruction in the new Operating Rules was
for the mutual benefit of both the Claimants and the Carrier. It was essential
to the efficient and safe operation of the railroad. In this respect such attendance was also in the nature of a re-examination to keep the employes qualified
for their positions.
In Award 4250 we said:
"It has been held, and we think correctly so, that employes qualifying themselves for positions and keeping themselves qualified and
to achieve promotion, are serving themselves primarily."
In that case, as here, the claimant attended a meeting to acquaint himself
with new operating rules.
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 .
That Carrier did not violate the Agreement.
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of February 1966.