EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On Tuesday, .January 26, 1965, the General Chairman was in Columbus Yard Office and saw the bulletin herein referred to as Employes' Exhibit No. 1.
Subsequently, Yard Clerk W. P. Greene, Jr., and Yard Clerk D. J. MeManimous turned in three hour call tickets for January 26, 1965 and January 29, 1965 (Greene for January 26 and 29, MeManimous for January 26) claiming pay for service performed in connection with attending the meeting called by Terminal Trainmaster R. J. Reilly, Jr. These tickets were never returned to the claimants but they were rejected under date of February 14, 1965 by Terminal Trainmaster R. J. Reilly, Jr., and copies of these rejections are hereto attached and identified as Employes' Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3.
April 13, 1965, Vice General Chairman R. D. Gibson appealed the rejection of the claims to Superintendent H. L. Bishop, Jr., the next officer desig-
for the purpose of discussing the use and operation of the new Reeordak Machine in the office where these clerks are employed.
This will confirm conference held with you by my representative, Mr. J. L. Ferrell, on October 15, 1965, in Atlanta, Georgia, and for the reasons set forth in conference, will reaffirm my declination of October 12, 1965, inasmuch as you could not show that either of these clerks suffered any loss of time. Further, it was pointed out to you that Clerk R. D. Gibson (your Vice General Chairman) accepted the declination of Terminal Trainmaster R. J. Reilly involving an identical claim-obviously recognizing that these claims lack merit."
The foregoing facts show that this baseless claim has been denied at each and every stage of handling on the property because the claim is unsupported by either the effective rules agreement, interpretations or practice on this Carrier.
OPINION OF BOARD: On January 26 and January 29, 1965, Yard Clerk W. P. Greene, Jr. attended a meeting outside of his working hours called by the Terminal Trainmaster to get information about a new method of operation for the handling of waybills by Recordak Machines. Yard Clerk D. J. MeManimous also attended one of these meetings on January 26, 1965. Both Clerks make claims for compensation for attendance at these meetings. They take the position that since their attendance was compulsory, since they performed a service for Carrier on their off-duty time, and since employes had previously been paid for such attendance, they are entitled to be paid a three-hour call for each meeting at which they were present.
Carrier denies violation of any rule of the Clerks' Agreement and states that these meetings for instruction in the operation of new equipment were properly held in accordance with Rule 51. It denies that it had previously paid employes for attendance at such meetings after work hours.
Rule 51 (b) provides that when new machines are adopted in the performance of work covered by the Agreement the employe will receive instructions in the operation of these machines for a reasonable period without loss of time. Claimants received such instructions without loss of time, for they were paid for their regular eight hours of the assigned work week. In short, they suffered no monetary loss by their attendance at these meetings. Rule 51 does not provide for payment for instructions held outside the regular working hours. Furthermore, the record does not support the allegation that employes in similar situations in the past were given additional compensation.
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;