THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: This claim resulted when Carrier refused to continue to allow employes in the System Signal Construction Gang to make up time after May 24, 1965, as they had in the past, so they could get. home on weekends.
Prior to that time, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 25 of the Signalmen's Agreement and a practice of some forty-four (44) years' duration, employes assigned to these gangs had been permitted to make up a sufficient amount of time in either four or five days to make weekend trips home.
Whenever the gangs were working in far west Texas, New Mexico, and Southern Louisiana, the employes were permitted to make up eight (8) hours" work each week. Prior to the so-called 40-Hour Week Agreement they worked 48 hours in 5 days; afterwards, they worked 40 hours in 4 days.
On September 1, 1964, instructions were given verbally by Superintendent of Signals and Communications G. H. Alford to Signal Foremen that their gangs would no longer be permitted to work 4 ten-'hour days. He said makeup time would in the future be limited to 4 hours each week.
General Chairman J. J. Morris immediately entered a protest against such unilateral action by Mr. Alford, and the matter was subsequently handled with Superintendent Alford and Director of Personnel O. B. Sayers during all of which time the practice of the gangs' working 4 ten-hour days was continued. A conference with Mr. Sayers was had on February 8, 1965, and on the following day Mr. Sayers addressed a letter to General Chairman Morris in which he had the following to say:
And there was no complaint until Alay 24, 1965, when Mr. Alford told the System Signal Construction Gang employes that thereafter the amount of time which could be made up in a week would be limited to 4 hours. The practice of permitting them to work 4 ten-hour days was then discontinued.
After a further exchange of correspondence, the Carrier received a copy of the Organization's letter notifying your Board of their intention to file a submission in this dispute.
OPINION OF BOARD: Prior to May 24, 1965 employes assigned to gangs working at substantial distances away from their home stations were permitted to make up sufficient time during four or five day work weeks to enable them to take weekend trips home. This was often done by working four 10 hour days. On May 24, 1965 Superintendent Alford informed System Signal Construction gang employes, that thereafter the amount of time which could be made up in a week would be limited to four hours. Employes filed the instant claim when they were forced to travel home on Saturdays on three successive weekends.
Organization claims that Rule 25 of the parties Agreement enables employes to elect and make up lost time at straight time rates in order to make weekend trips to their homes. It asserts that Carrier was arbitrary in denying employes the right to make up the hours during these three weeks, particularly since there was no showing as through overtime work that the work which they were doing was of an emergency or rush nature. Accordingly it asserts that conditions did permit employes to make up such time lost in going home, and that Claimants are thus entitled to the amounts claimed because of Carrier's improper action.
Carrier denies that it acted improperly. It relies on Rule 28(a) which clearly establishes a five day week, and asserts that when management in its judgment determines that conditions permit, employes may make weekend trips to their homes. It acknowledges that Rule 25 permits employes to make up time lost, but it insists that it has the final authority to determine when such weekends may be taken and such time may be made up.
Rule 25 of the parties Agreement envisions that employes working in gangs so removed from their base location as to require extra travel time to spend reasonable weekends at home may work extra hours on other days of the week at straight time rates to make up for time lost in travel. However this procedure is not set forth as an absolute right of the employes concerned. Rather such procedures are conditioned not upon an objective standard of "when conditions permit" but rather "when in it · judgment of the management conditions permit." Thus it has been agreed by the parties that the Carrier shall have the authority to determine when employes working under such conditions may make weekend trips home, and when they may make up the necessary lost travel time hours to accomplish this.
This judgment of the management must be exercised in a fair and reasonable manner, and Organization has the right to challenge this exercise of judgment if it feels Carrier to be arbitrary or capricious in its actions.
In the instant case the evidence is that the gang concerned was occupied in installing flashing light signals needed to protect traffic using FR Road 1369 as it crossed the railroad and in rearranging signals related to a siding extension at Pilot Point. In the light of these facts we are unconvinced by Organization's claim that Carrier's action for three weeks in denying the opportunity for extended weekends was either arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly the claim must be denied.
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
We are gratified that the Majority concedes that the "judgment of the management" is not a final, unquestionable prerogative; truly, management must exercise its judgment in a fair and reasonable manner. We do not, however, agree that management did so in the present dispute.
As pointed out by the employes, in the circumstances which obtained in Docket SG-16683, only an urgency such as a deadline which, in order to be met, required that employes be worked in excess of their normal forty-hour week could have established fairness and reasonableness in the management's judgment. The incident complained of extended over a period of three weeks, and in none of these weeks was it necessary to work the claimant employes more than forty hours on the projects cited as justification. The Carrier would not have been placed in more than normal jeopardy by acceeding to its employe's request, and this fact, it is evident, was known to the Carrier in advance. No condition existed which should have lead the Carrier to its arbitrary judgment.