NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-20028
Frederick R. Blackwell, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES
TO DISPUTE:
(Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Company
STATEMENT C&' CLAIM: Claims of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signal men on the Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Company that:
Claim No. 1.
Carrier pay to Signal Maintainer J. K. Payne additional time
for overtime services performed on rest days, under provisions of Rule 372
of the Signal..mea's Agreement, as follows:
Date Time O.T. Hours Claimed
March 13,
1971
7.2:01 A.M. - 2:40 A.M. 2-2 3
March 14,
1971
6:30 A.M. - 9
:00
A.M. 2-2/3
March 14,
1971 9:10
A.M. - 71:50 A.M. 2-2/3
March 14,
1971
6:00 P.m. - 8:40 P.m. 2-2/3
April 3,
1971
72:01 P.M. - 2:40 P.M. 2-2/3
Carrier's File: 601.52
Claim No. 2.
Carrier pay to Signal Maintainer D. J. Hill additional time
for overtime services performed on rest days, under provisions of Rule 312
of the Signalmen's Agreement, as follows: `
Date Time O.T. Hours Claimed
April 3,
1971
72:05 A.M. - 2:45 A.M. 2-2 3
APB 3s 19'71
8:00 A.M. - 10:40 A.M. 2-2/3
April 3,
1971.
72:05 P.M. - 2:45 P.M. 2-2/3
April 3,
1971
6:00 P.m. - 8:40 P.m. 2-2/3
April 4,
1971
1:00 P.M. - 3:40 P.M. 2-2/3
Carrier's File: 601.52)
Claim No. 3.
Carrier pay to Signal Maintainer P. A. Semien additional
time for overtime services performed on rest days, under provisions of
Rule 372 of the Signalmen's Agreement, as follows:
~H~
Award Number 20324 Page 2
Docket Number SG-20028
Date Time O.T. Hours Claimed
March 6, 1971 7:00 A.M. - 8:00 A.M. 2-2 3
March 6, 1971 9:05 P.M. - 10:05 P.M. 2-2/3
March 7, 1971 11:15 A.M. - 12:30 P.M. 2-2/3
ch 7, 1971 3:45 P.M. - 5:00 P.M.
March 13, 1971 6:1.5 A.M. - 7:00 AM. 2-2/3
March 13, 1971 7:50 A.M. - 8:30 A.M. 2-2/3
March 14, 1971 3:35 A.M. - 9:00 A.M. 5 Hrs.-25 Min.
March 14, 1971 :00 P.M. - 6:30 P.m. 2-2/3
Carrier's File: 601.43)
OPINION OF HOARD: The Employees assert that the herein claim should be
sustained under the time limit rule, or upon the merits.
The time limit contention is based on the presumption that a
"7sily time slip" constitutes a claim which the Carrier was obligated to
disallow in writing under the time limit rule. It is well settled that a
time slip does not constitute a claim within the meaning of the time limit
rule and, thus, the Employees' contention concerning time limits must be
rejected.
With respect to the merits, the Employees say that the Cla,immts,
Signal Maintainers, should receive additional compensation on account of
work which they performed on their off duty hours and rest days. The basis
of this argument is that Rules 312 and 306 are paramount over Rules 600 and
602, which are said by Carrier to control the dispute. With respect to
Rules 312 and 306, it suffices to say that the Claimants would be entitled
to additional compensation if such rules were controlling. Rules 600 and
602, in pertinent part, read as folhms:
"Rule 600. The following minim- rates of pay are hereby
incorporated in and made a part of this agreement and they
will remain in full force and effect until and unless changed
in the manner provided in the Railway Labor Act, as amended.
Per Month (Effective Apiil 1, 1972)
(b) Signal Maintainer $1,041.52"
"(a) Rate 602. The following employes will be paid on the
basis of a monthly rate as provided in Rule 600.
5. Signal Maintainer
Award Number 20324 Page 3
Docket Number SG-20028
"(b) Employes paid on basis of monthly rate will not be
required to perform ordinary maintenance or construction
work on the sixth or seventh day rest days or holidays
of their work week, but will perform emergency work as
necessary to restore signals stem i.aterruptions. Time
will be deducted if an e~loye lays off of his own accord.
(c) In the event such employes are required to perform
ordinary maintenance or construction work on the sixth
or seventh day or holidays of their assigned work week,
they will be additionally compensated at overtime hourly
rate. Hourly rates for monthly rated employes will be
computed by dividing monthly rate by 211 2/3 hours.
Future wage adjustments will be made on basis of 211 2/3
hours. If it is found that this rule does not produce
adequate compensation for certain of these positions by
reason of the occupants thereof being required to work
excessive hours, the salaries of these positions may be
taken up for adjustment." (emphasis supplied)
The Claimants are monthly rated employees by virtue of Rules 600
and 602 (a) and, as such, they came within the purview of Rule 6o2 (b). The
underlined text of 602 (b), as well. as the text of 602 (c), makes it quite
clear that monthly rated employees are required to perform emergency work
during off duty hours and rest days without any compensation in addition
to their monthly rate. The dispute here involves emergency work and the
Employees do not contend to the contrary. Manifestly, Rules 600 and 602
are expressly tailored to the monthly rated employee, and the characteristics of his work, while Rul
The facts here involve monthly rated employees and, thus, there is no question that Rules 600 and 60
same parties and property, have previously denied claims based on essentially the same issue as pres
this claim.
FINDIMS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the .whole record
and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are
respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the iilway Labor
Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over
the dispute involved herein; and
Award Number 20324
Docket Number SG-20028
That the Agreement was not violated.
Claims denied.
ATTEST: _ (((/ i
xecutive Secretary
Page 4
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of July, 1974.
