CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Employe P. W. Wood is the regularly assigned occupant of Assistant Chief Yard Clerk Position 8603 at Tacoma Yard, Seniority District No. 45, with assigned hours 9:30 P. M. to 5:30 A. M., Thursday through Monday, with rest days of Tuesday and Wednesday, at a rate of pay of $22 2984 per day.
Employe E. P. Logan is the regularly assigned occupant of Yard Checker Position 8606 at Tacoma Yard, Seniority District No. 45 with assigned hours of 9:30 P. M. to 5:30 A. M., Thursday through Monday, with rest days of Tuesday and Wednesday, at a rate of pay of $21.3504 per day.
Both of the aforementioned positions perform service on a shift which is part of and included in around-the-clock service in existence at the Tacoma Yard.
On August 11, 1965, Superintendent J. J. Nentl issued the following notice:
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimants remained on duty for thirty minutes following the expiration of their regularly assigned shifts on August 16, 1965 at 5:30 A. M. because the starting time of the next shift had been changed from 5:30 A. M. to 6:00 A. M. Petitioner contends that Claimants are entitled to compensation for thirty (30) minutes each at the penalty rate of their respective positions under Rule 32(b) of the controlling Agreement because clerks at the Tacoma Yard are required to remain on the job until relieved by employes on the following shift pursuant to standing orders and past practice.
Carrier denies that Claimants were required to remain on duty until relieved and that no standing order exists as alleged by Petitioner. Furthermore, Carrier contends that Claimants had no authority to remain on duty beyond their respective shifts without direction from the Carrier under Rule 32(a) of said Agreement.
Petitioner's case is bottomed upon the allegation that clerical employes at Tacoma Yard have standing instructions not to leave their assignments until relieved, and that such practice has been in existence for many years. Carrier emphatically denies the existence of such standing orders and resulting practice over the years.
Petitioner offered in evidence a letter signed by eleven employes of Carrier addressed to Petitioner's General Chairman, which supports Claimant's contention that all clerical employes in the Yard have been instructed to remain on duty until relieved because it is a three shift operation. This letter also provides in part that the signatories were to notify the chief clerk if the regular relief did not arrive in time or on time so that he could arrange for other relief.
Thus, it is clear that the decisive question is whether Rule 32(a) has been abrogated or substantially amended by conflicting oral instructions and contrary practice over the years. In the absence of direct testimony of probative value concerning the patent conflict in the evidence offered by the parties, we must conclude that the pertinent language found in the Agreement is controlling. This Board cannot settle such question of disputed facts, and we have no alternative but to dismiss the claim. Awards 12789, 13578, and others.