Award No. 18585
Docket No. SG-18945






PARTIES TO DISPUTE:



STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Illinois Central Railroad Company that:


EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is an agreement between the present parties bearing an effective date of August 1, 1958, which is by reference made a part of the record in this dispute. Rule 212 of that Agreement provides in pertinent part:



On Sunday, December 15, 1968, the Carrier called Mr. Crowell for the purpose of correcting signal trouble between Saline and Reevesville, Illinois and then called back twenty minutes later, after Mr. Crowell had changed his clothing and was about to leave his home, and told him to "forget it."


As evidenced by Brotherhood's Exhibits Nos. 1 through 10, the Carrier declined payment to Mr. Crowell for a minimum call on this occasion, and a

claim was therefor filed and handled on the property in the usual manner, up to and including conference with the highest officer of the Carrier designated to handle such disputes, without settlement.




CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: In the early afternoon on December 15, 1968, Signal Maintainer H. R. Crowell received a telephone call from the Benton Operator. The operator asked Mr. Crowell if he would come to work for the purpose of correcting signal trouble between Saline, Illinois and Reevesville, Illinois. Mr. Crowell consented.


Twenty minutes later, at about 12:50 P. M., the operator called back and informed Mr. Crowell that the problem was taken care of and he need not report. Mr. Crowell did not leave his home.


The union filed claim for a two hour and 40 minute minimum call because of the activity described above, arguing that the rule entitles an employe to pay if he answers his telephone.


The company contends that the rule requires that the employe do more than answer his telephone to qualify for pay. The employe must also report for work.


The issue, then, is whether the rule provides that an employe will receive a minimum of two hours and forty minutes at the overtime rate (about fifteen dollars) for merely answering his telephone on his rest day.











OPINION OF BOARD: The facts are clear. On Sunday, December 15, 1968, at about 12:30 P. M., Carrier called Claimant by telephone for the purpose of correcting signal trouble between Saline, Illinois and Reevesville, Illinois. About twenty minutes later he was notified that the problem was taken care of and he need not report. The Petitioner contended on the property that Claimant had changed his clothing and was about ready to leave his home when he was notified that his services were not needed. The Carrier denied the claim for a minimum call on the basis that Claimant performed no service for the Company and contends that for Claimant to be entitled to a call payment it was necessary for him to report on its property.




18585 2



Paragraph (g) provides specifically that "The time of an employe called will begin at the time called." There is no dispute that Claimant herein was "called" at about 12:30 P. M., and he accepted the call. Under the clear provisions of the rule his time began then and ended when the call was cancelled some twenty minutes later. For this time, the Claimant was entitled to the minimum payment of two hours and forty minutes. If Claimant had refused to accent the call, then there would have been a different situation, but here he was called, accepted the call, and was preparing himself to report when the call was cancelled.


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












Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of June 1971.

Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, Ill. Printed in U. S. A.

18585