1. The Carrier (Lehigh Valley Railroad) violated our agreement on June 15, 1969 and July 1, 1969 when it failed to compensate
Claimants as listed for meal periods ~9ue them for the month of June 1969, said compensation being held in abeyance from them in the various amounts as follows:
BETHLEHEM TOWER, Bethlehem, Pa. Pro rata $3.2947, Punitive $4.9421
Carrier submits that to agree to and arrange for a so-called ",joint check" in this case could have had only one result; in each instance employe could be aware of the check and arrange accordingly not to have lunch period available.
Actually Carrier representatives made a check and Carrier Exhibits "L-2," "M-1 and 2," "N," "O," "P," "Q," "R," "S;' and "T," show the actual situation; some of which included reading material, exercise bar bells and weights, radio, personal typewriter being used for non railroad activities.
OPINION OF BOARD: This claim is based on an alleged violation of Rule 14(b) of the Agreement between the parties which reads as follows:
The Carrier has denied through the handling on the property that a situation existed whereby the employes did not have twenty consecutive minutes in which to eat.
The Organization has not come forth with evidence of probative value to substantiate the Claims. They have, however, relied heavily on the refusal of the Carrier to join with the employes in a joint check as an admission against interest.
The Carrier is under no obligation to aid the Claimants in the development of their claim. We do not agree with the contention of the Organization that this matter is of such a nature that the refusal of the Carrier to ·enter into a joint check resulted in an admission against interest.
The Carrier submitted that the Block sheets indicate that the twenty minute period was available. Further, the Carrier conducted a unilateral ch·Tk to determine the validity of the allegalion. It also requested each employ·e to explain when he was unable to take his twenty minute lunch period. There was no reply from the employes. We cannot agree that the Carrier sat on his hands" in the instant matter and refused to attempt to solve the problem on the property.
The burden of proof has not been met by the Claimants. Accordingly we will deny the claims.
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
9hird Division Award>: 1356, 7785, 7839, 12957, 13039, 17035, 17178, and 17179.
CARRIER'S STATEMENT O-.G` FACTS: There is in effect on this property an agreement betwc^r the T C Division-BRAClerks (formerly T. C. U.) and the Lehiph Val!ay Railroad Company, effective February 1, 1948 which, by this mention, becomes pant of Cori', ·r's Submission.
On the payroll submitted for incumbents of T-C Division, BRAC positions at Easton, Newark, Bethlehem and Lehigxhton, the only four towers on this property between Jersey City, N. J., and Coxton, Pa., a railroad distance of 185.5 miles, there appeared a notation of 1/,·a of an hour payable at punitive rate each day for which it was shown account "No Lunch," beginning with June 1, 1969.
Carrier immediately addressed an individual letter to each of the employes whose names appeared on the payrolls. (Please see Carrier's Exhibit "A" as a copy of the form letter used). There were no replies received from any of the claimants to explain the payroll notation.
At the same time, (Carrier's Exhibit "C-2") employes attempt to make an offset to the record as shown by the block sheets, by stating °* * * even though the Block Records MAY SHOW that Claimant has more than 20 minute intervals in some cases, this does not reflect the other work * * *"
Then, we ask, why not claimants respond to the Carrier's request for explanation (Carrier's Exhibit "A")?
The fact is the block sheets do show that opportunity did exist for claimants to obtain twenty minutes consecutively for lunch period between the end of the third hour and beginning of the sixth hour as stipulated by Rule 14 (b) of the schedule.
The further fact is that a check by Carrier representative unannounced, developed many variations of the lunch theme at the towers involved.
There were some employes who, of their own volition, ate their lunch shortly after going on duty. Several ate no lunch altho time was available.