- Award Number 17343


NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

THIRD DIVISION




PARTIES TO DISPUTE
TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES UNION
ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Transportation-Communication Employees Union on the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway, that:




EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Copy of the Agreement between the parties effective May 16, 1928, revised effective May 16, 1963, and as further revised and supplemented, is available to your Board and by this reference is made a part hereof.


Claimant was the owner and regularly assigned occupant of telegrapher position #2 at Hayti, Missouri, with assigned hours extending from 1:00 A.M. until 9:00 A.M. His position is listed in the wage Scale of the Agreement as being on Carrier's River Division.


Prior to September 28, 1965, claimant's assigned rest days were Saturday and Sunday. Effective on that date, however, Carrier changed his rest days to Sunday and Monday. He was given proper notice.


Monday, September 27, 1965, was the first day of his old work week. He worked that day and was required to continue working on each of the following dates to and including Saturday, October 2, 1965. Thus he worked six consecutive days. For each of those days, however, Carrier allowed him eight hours at the pro rata rate.


For his work on Saturday, October 2, 1965, claimant had claimed eight hours at the time and one-half rate. Upon being allowed only the pro rata rate, he referred the dispute to his General Chairman, who filed formal claim for the difference on October 20, 1965. Claim was denied on October 22, 1965 and subsequently handled on appeal in the usual manner. It was dis< u1sed in conference with Carrier's Director of Labor Relations on January 5 and 6, 1966.

Other facts are revealed in the correspondence exchanged by the parties during the handling of this claim on the property. Copies of that correspondence are appended hereto as TCU Exhibits #1 through #10.




CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: Immediately preceding September 28, 1965 the rest days of Telegrapher Position No. 2 at Hayti, Missouri, occupied by Claimant L V. Shepard, were Saturday and Sunday.


On September 21, 1965 the claimant was notified that effective Tuesday, September 28, 1965 the rest days on Telegrapher Position No. 2 at Hayti would be changed from Saturday and Sunday to Sunday and Monday. The change in rest days was made effective on the first day of the new work week. The claimant did not work in excess of 40 straight-time hours or on more than five days in either the old work week ending September 27, 1965 or in the new work week beginning Tuesday, September 28, 1965.


The claimant worked Monday, September 27, 1965, which was a day of his former workweek assignment, and then, in accordance with the notice, the claimant commenced work on his new workweek assignment on Tuesday, September 28. The claimant worked each day Tuesday through Saturday for wbich he was paid the pro rata rate of pay for each day worked.




OPINION OF BOARD: The facts in the instant claim are uncomplicated and uneontroverted.


Claimant occupied Telegrapher Position #2 at Carrier's Hayti, Missouri, station. Prior to September 28, 1965, Claimant's work week commenced Monday, running for five (5) days, with Saturday and Sunday as rest days. On September 28, Claimant was given proper notice that his rest days were being changed to Sunday and Monday. Claimant, therefore, having his rest days shifted on him after he had commenced his old work week, worked from Monday, September 27 through Saturday, October 2. He now brings claim for time and one-half for the sixth day of the six days he had worked consecutively.


Carrier contends, and we agree, that it has the right to adjust and change an employee's work week and his rest days. Carrier claims that Claimant here worked only one day (Monday, September 27) on his old work week, and since his rest days had been altered, he had worked only five (5) days on his new work week. Consequently, they disallowed time and one-half for Saturday, October 2.







17343 2











Carrier relies heavily on Awards 7719 and 10755. We find the latter award not in point because a "guarantee provision" was in effect. As to Award 7719, we find that it has been sufficiently overturned by a preponderance of more recent Awards. (See Awards 9962, 10497, 10530, 10674, 10744, 10901, 11036, 11322, 11549, 11991, 11992, 12319, 12600, 12782, 12797, 12798, 12799, 12911, 12973, 13113, 13299, 13661, 13711, 14116, 14644 and 15338. )


"We agree that the Carrier possesses the right to change rest days. However, this Board has repeatedly held that an employe cannot be required to work more than five consecutive days or forty hours without overtime compensation." Award 12911.


This Board finds no justification in the present claim to disturb the position we took in that and the other above-cited awards, and consequently, we sustain this claim.


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


1734:1 3











Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of July 1969.

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

17343 4