Award Number 17316
Docket Number TD-17946






PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the American Dispatchers Association that:



EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: At the time here in question an Agreement was in effect between the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company (now part of the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company) and the Claimant Organization. A copy of that Agreement should be on file with this Board and by this reference the same is incorporated into and as a part of this Submission as though fully set out.


For the Board's ready reference Article 3 of the Agreement applicable to the former Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company and which was in effect at the time here involved is quoted in pertinent part:





CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: Effective July 1, 1967, the Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company and the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company merged and became designated as Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company.


The claimant in this dispute is a former Atlantic Coast Line employee who was, on the date involved in the claim, subject to the agreement between the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company and its train dispatchers represented by the American Train Dispatchers' Association, dated September 1, 1949, as amended.


A pre-deposition conference was held in the office of Carrier's Division Counsel at Tampa, Florida, on Thursday, February 23, 1967, in connection with suit brought against Carrier as a result of highway crossing accident which occurred at Dover, Florida, on April 15, 1966. Train Dispatcher Oelslager, Tampa, Florida, and several other employees, were required to attend the pre-deposition conference. Mr. Oelslager attended the conference on his rest day and was paid a straight time day for attending the conference in office of Division Counsel.


Claim was presented in behalf of Mr. Oelslager for 8 hours at rate of time and one-half for service performed on his rest day on Thursday, February 23, 1967, attending this pre-deposition conference.


The Association based its claim in behalf of Mr. Oelslager on alleged violation of Article 3(b) of the Agreement effective September 1, 1949, which, for convenience is quoted below:







There having been no violation of the Agreement, the claim for punitive payment to Train Dispatcher Oelslager on February 23, 1967, was at all times declined on all levels of appeal on the property.


OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, a train dispatcher for Carrier, was sent the following directive on February 21, 1967, by Carrier's Chief Dispatcher:




The date of this conference and deposition taking fell upon one of Claimant's rest days. After having dutifully attended this conference for


17316 4

Carrier, Claimant put in for eight (8) hours at time and one-half. Carrier, instead, allowed Claimant eight (8) hours of straight time. Employes contend that the Agreement supports Claimant's claim for time and one half. Carrier claims that time and one-half is not supported by the Agreement, alleging that attending a deposition taking was not the kind of "service" intended by the language of the Agreement. Nonetheless, Carrier allowed the eight (8) hours of straight time pay.














Although it is true that the Agreement is not explicit as to time and one-half payment for services other than those normally consistent with one's regular duties, this Board feels that the required attendance of Claimant for Carrier's purposes at this conference on Claimant's rest day must be considered "service" in Carrier's employ and must therefore be compensated at the rate of time and one-half. This "service" rendered by Claimant was, or was considered by Carrier's actions, at least as vital as his regular service to Carrier.


However, this Board is loathe to sustain this award for a full eight (8) hours of time and one-half pay when the record is silent as to exactly how much of Claimant's rest day was usurped by this conference.


17316 5

Consequently, we sustain the claim for time and one-half pay to be computed by the minute for the exact amount of time Claimant spent at the conference and deposition taking. However, we remand to the property the question of how much of Claimant's time was required in consonance with the above opinion.


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, 1984;


That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and













Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of July 1969.

Central Publishing Co., Indianapolis, Ind. 46206 Printed in U.S.A.

17316 6