Award No. 17113 Docket No. SG-17677
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Claimant L. K. West is a Signal Maintainer on a position which was bulletined to work, "General Maintenance and relieving as assigned by Supervisor", with rest days, "Dependent upon relief assignments".
The claim arises because the Supervisor required Signal Maintainer West to work consecutively, without rest days, ten (10) days-July 27 to August 5, 1966-for which he was paid only the straight time rate.
During the first five of those days, Mr. West worked 2:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. at Tower A-2, and on the other five he worked 6:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. at Bensenville Hump Yard.
On a GENERAL TIME AND DISTRIBUTION RECORD, FORM PR.1, the Maintainer claimed pay at the overtime rate for having worked August 1 and 2; however, Carrier refused to allow such punitive payment and paid him instead at the straight time rate for work on the sixth and seventh days.
Formal claim was initiated on September 19, 1966, by Local Chairman L. T. Davies, who cited as the basis for such claim Rule 10 of the Agreement. Carrier in denying the claim relied on Rule 13, alleging that Claim-
Rule 13(e) of the currently effective schedule agreement between the parties here in dispute reads as follows:
In accordance with the specific provisions of aforequoted Rule 13(e), claimant West received the straight time rate of pay for the service he performed on the claim dates of the instant claim, i.e., August 1 and 2, 1966, and properly so, because such work was performed due to his moving from one assignment (Signal Maintainer position at Tower A-2) to another (Leading Signalman position at Bensenville Hump Yard).
There is attached hereto as Carrier's Exhibit "B" copy of letter written by Mr. S. W. Amour, Vice President-Labor Relations, to Mr. D. E. Twitchell, General Cbairman, under date of April 4, 1967.
OPINION OF BOARD: The issue herein is whether or not Carrier violated Rules 10 and 13 of the Agreement when Claimant worked ten consecutive work days from July 27, 1966 through August 5, 1966 at straight time rate of pay, without being allowed any rest days during said period.
The Organization contends that Section (g), Item (7) of Rule 10 and Rule 13 authorize overtime rates on the 6th and 7th days that Claimant was required to work during the period in question.
The Carrier's position is that Rule 13 (e) is the controlling rule and the exception contained therein precludes overtime pay on the 6th and 7th days when, as here, Claimant was moved from one assignment to another; that Claimant did not have any assigned headquarters, or assigned to rest days and worked whenever directed by his supervisor; that the instant claim was never discussed on the property as required by Railway Labor Act and therefore the claim should he dismissed.
First, in regard to the issue as to whether this claim was discussed in conference on the property, the Organization in its rebuttal, refers to Exhibit No. 10 in Docket No. SG-17060, in support of its position that a conference was held on the property in regard to this particular claim. However, the conference referred to in said exhibit was held in regard to a different claim of this same Claimant involving among other rules the same rule No. 13(e) as in this dispute. It is thus clearly seen that a conference was not held on the property at any time in regard to this particular claim pending herein. Therefore, in line with a long series of Awards of this Board holding that it is mandatory, unless waived by both parties, that a conference be held on the property to discuss the claim, and there being no waiver herein by either party, we are compelled to dismiss this claim for lack of jurisdiction.
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.