NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: All of the claimants were regularly assigned as section laborers on either Section No. 2, Circleville, Ohio or Section No. 3, Joyce Avenue, Ohio (see Part (2) of our Statement of Claim). Their assigned hours extended from 7:30 A.M. to 4:00 P.M., including a thirty (30) minute meal period.
When Section Gangs Nos. 2 and 3 began their day's work at 7:30 A.M. on February 2, 1967, a light rain was falling. It continued to rain until about 10:00 A.M., at which time the rainfall ceased and it began to sleet and snow. The snowfall continued until sometime after 4:00 P.M. on that day. Both gangs were assigned to and did perform track surfacing and other routine maintenance work until 10:30 A.M., when the claimants were
"We fail to understand how the weather could be considered inclement for only certain employes and in fact, according to recorded records and past practices it could not be considered inclement within the meaning of the terms of the agreement and existing conditions insofar as working employes is concerned.
"Therefore please consider this as a claim for time for each employe listed in Attachment-A at his respective rate of pay for five hours each on February 2, 1967.
"We are citing Rule 37-A and Rule 16 as well as any other rule in the MW Agreement that might pertain thereto in support of our request."
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimants seeks a full day's pay for February 2, 1967, a day on which they actually worked from 7:30 A.M. to 10:30 A.M., at which latter time they were ordered to quit work because of asserted inclemency of the weather.
They claim that they were entitled to a full day under the provisions of Rule 35, which reads:
"Except as otherwise provided in these rules, eight (8) consecutive hours, exclusive on the meal period, shall constitute a day's work."
The instant dispute revolves around the meaning of the phrase "inclement weather." The term must certainly be deemed a relative one; weather might be classified as inclement for one activity but sufficiently clement for another activity. Essentially, therefore, it is a matter of judgment. Rhubarbs have developed over an umpire's exercise of his discretion in halting a baseball game because of inclement weather-particularly in instances when the sun emerges brightly just after the stands have been emptied. In our instant case, Employes cite statistics showing the total rainfall for the day and compare it with other days that the crew was worked when the total exceeded that of the day in dispute. If anything, this proves that whoever made the decision to cease operations on the day in question did not do so because of any continuing scheme to deprive claimants of work. Indeed, there is a total absence of any indication of bad faith on the part of Carrier. Such being the case, we do not feel we have any right to second-guess the managerial decision to stop work. A work stoppage during inclement weather is as much, if not more, in the interest of employes as it is in the interest of management.