STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company.
In b-half of Foremen K. E. `Fear, Signalman L. R. Farlin, and Assistant Signalman W. J. Webb, Signal Gang #131, for travel time for the following work point changes (except Farlin excluded from move Savannah to Earlville):
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: This is a claim for pay for time signal gang employes spent in traveling from one work point to another outside assigned hours or on rest days. It was initiated under Section I-C-1 of the Award of Arbitration Board No. 298.
The initial claim, filed under date of July 19, 1968, in substantially the same form as our Statement of Claim, has been partially settled on the property. The record herein will show that on January 2, 1969, Carrier made an offer of partial settlement, with the only question before this Board at this time being the claim on behalf of Foreman Wear.
Pertinent exchange of correspondence on the property is attached hereto as Brotherhood's Exhibit Nos. 1 through 7. As shown thereby, this dispute was handled to a conclusion on the property, up to and including conference
The settlement of the claims in behalf of Claimants Webb and Farlin, as outlined in Carrier's Exhibit No. 1 and as described above, was accepted by the General Chairman in his letter dated August 16, 1969, copy attached hereto identified as Carrier's Exhibit No. 3. It will be noted therein that the General Chairman stated, under item No. 4, as follows:
Claimant Wear, the Foreman, is a monthly rated employe covered by Rule 58, which provides that the monthly rate constitutes compensation for all services rendered, except as otherwise provided for in the rule. The only exception is for service performed on the one rest day each week (Sunday) when rules applicable to other employes will apply. The only time that claimant Wear travelled on Sunday was March 24, and he was allowed 12 hours and 50 minutes, as shown in Carrier's letter of August 27, 1969, copy attached hereto as Carrier's Exhibit No. 4.
The schedule of rules agreement between the parties, and amendments thereto, are by reference made a part of this submission.
OPINION OF BOARD: The Organization originally filed claim on behalf of three members of Signal Group No. 131 for travel time. The claims of two of the members were settled on the property, and the claim of Claimant, Foreman K. E. Wear, remains for decision.
The Organization initiated the claim by letter to Carrier, dated July 19, 1968, from General Chairman, W. W. Lauer, setting forth that the claim for travel time was being filed under Arbitration Award No. 298, S°ction I-C-1 of said Award.
Carrier's Director of Labor Relations, G. M. Youhn, advised General Chairman Lauer, by letter dated January 2, 1969, that in regard to item 1 of the claim the elapsed travel time was 34 hours and 20 minutes and not 41 hours and 30 minutes as claimed by the Organization and that since Claimant Wear drove his own automobile and is a monthly rated employe, he is not entitled to any travel time pay; that in regard to Item 2 of the claim it is denied in regard to the 17 hours travel time on the basis that Claimant and his outfit did not travel on April 28 and 29, 1969; that in regard to Item 3 of the claim, the elapsed travel time was 33 hours and 15 minute, and denied the claim of Wear on the basis he was not entitled to any additional payment because he is a monthly rated employe and he was paid 8 hours on each date; that in regard to Item 4 of the claim, the elapsed travel time was 1 hour, 30 minutes, and denied Claimant Wear's claim on account of being a monthly rated employe.
By letter dated August 16, 1969, the Organization accepted the Carrier's settlement of the claims other than Wear's and offered to settle the claim of Claimant Wear on the payment of travel time of 26 hours and 20 minutes for March 23 and 24, 1969, and 16 hours and 50 minutes for May 17, 1969. The letter also mentioned that in March "Mr. Wear was paid 208 hours pay and is therefore entitled to 31 hours additional pay for travel time." and that "in May, 1969 his total hours of payment would be 216 !:ours service plus 15 hours travel time."
On August 27, 1909, Carrier, by letter, rejected the Organization's offer of settlement, claiming that under Rule 58 of the basic Agreement monthly rated employes are entitled to travel time only on their Sunday rest day and "Based on this conclusion, the only travel time to which Claimant Wear is entitled is the 12 hours and 50 minutes on Sunday, March 24, and this will be allowed."
Carrier asserts that when Interpretation No. 34 to Arbitration Board Award No. 298 is read in conjunction with Rule 58, it is perfectly manifest that monthly rated employes are entitled 10 travel time in addition to their monthly rate only on their Sunday rest day; that said Interpretation No. 34 to said Award No. 298 is controlling herein and the interpretation specifies that travel time allowance does not begin to apply until the overtime rule applies and the overtime rule does not apply to monthly rated emploves, such as Claimant heroin, except on the Sunday rest day, and therefore Claimant was allowed travel time on his Sunday rest day in this case.
The Board finds that the parties, in accepting the Award of Arbitration Board No. 298, agreed to abrogate the then existing Agreement to the extent in conflict, and therefore the disposition of the claim must be based on the application of Section I-C-1 as applied to the facts in this claim.
Claimant Wear was the foreman of System Signal Gang No. 131, headquartered in outfit cars, a type of service, the nature of which regularly required them to live away from home throughout their work week, and as such, are subject to the provisions of Article 1 of Award of Arbitration Board No. '3fa8. (See Carrier's Statement of Facts. pg. 27.)
Section I-C-1 of said Arbitration Board clearly proviucs for payment at the straight time rate for time spent in traveling from one work point to another outside of regularly assigned hours. Interpretation No. 2 of said Arbitration Board Award No. 298 stated that "Under the provisions of Section I-C-1, each man will be paid the amount of travel time from one point to another which the conveyance offered by the Carrier would take regardless of how any man actually travels from one point to the other." (Claimant traveled by personal automobile although train time was offered by Cai ier.) See also Interpretations 9 and 17, whic'.a are similar to Interpretation 2 to said Award.
Therefore, it is clearly seen that under the provisions of Section I-C-1 of Arbitration Board Award No. 298 and the interpretation thereof, including Interpretation No. 34, Claimant Wear is entitled to travel time for the three months in question, March, May and June. (The Organization did not dispute the Carrier's claim that Claimant or his outfit didn't travel on April 28 and 29, 1968.)
Therefore, we will sustain the claim to the extent that Claimant has not been paid at the straight time rate for travel time which resulted in work in excess of 211% hours in each of the months of March, May and June, 1968 and will remand the claim to the property for a determination of said hours, if any, worked by Claimant, including travel time, in excess of said 2112.1 hours for each of the months aforesaid.
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 concur in the holding of Award 18415 that the Award of Arbitration Board No. 298 provides for payment to a monthly rated employe in addition to his salary for time spent in travel under Section I-C-1 of the Arbitration Award. Indeed, Award 18415 together with Interpretation No. 34 of the Arbitration Board firmly establish that fact.
It remains our position, however, that the differences between the pay rules for monthly rated employes under the schedule Agreements in this dispute and that in the dispute disposed of by the Interpretation No. 34, supra, dictated a fully sustaining award here. That position notwithstanding, the present Referee has held that payment for travel time shall be made for travel on days covered by the employe's monthly salary only after travel time results in work in excess of 211 hours in a month. The claim was remanded to the property for a determination of said hours, if any, worked by Claimant, including travel time, in excess of 2112ig hours for each month.
Without prejudice to our original position, and to keep the record straight, we here set our understanding that the words "hours * * * worked by Claimant" mean all hours worked-both during and outside of regularly assigned hours-on days covered by his monthly salary. We further understand that such hours are to be combined with his travel time and that he shall then be paid additionally for that part of the sum in excess of 211?5 hours.