NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT HOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number TD-20419
Frederick R. Blackwell, Referee
(American Train Dispatchers Association
PARTIES TO
DISPUTE:
(St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
STATEMENT OF
CLAIM: Claim of the American Train Dispatchers Association
that:
(a) The St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Compamy (hereinafter
referred to as ("the Carrier") violated the effective Schedule Agreement between the parties, Articl
when it
failed and refused to compensate Claimant Train Dispatcher
P. E. Paulsell at time and one-half the daily rate applicable to
Chief Dispatchers for service performed on Position No. 1 on
September 15, 1972.
(b) Because of said violation, Carrier shall now be required to compensate Claimant P.
E.
Paulsell the difference between
one (1) day's compensation at the pro rata daily and time and onehalf daily rate applicable to Chief
1972.
OPINION OF HOARD: The Claimant, a regularly assigned Relief Train
Dispatcher, was used on his rest day to fill a
one-day vacancy on the excepted position of the Chief Dispatcher.
The vacancy occurred because the Chief Dispatcher took leave for an
annual physical; it was not his rest day. The claim is that time
and one-half is due Claimant under Article III(a)(1) of the Agreement
and a letter Agreement dated February 20, 1952, because he worked the
position on his rest day; however, Carrier says the Claimant merely
stepped into the shoes of the Chief Dispatcher, as expressly provided
by a November 19, 1952 letter agreement, and, thus, its pro rata payment of Claimant was proper. As
the Carrier states that Claimmmt requested the one-day vacancy.
The pertinent texts of the agreement and special letters of
agreement read as follows:
"ARTICLE III
Rest Days, Vacation and Relief Service
(a) Rest Days
Page 2
Award Number 20377
Docket Number TD-20419
"
. . . . Any regularly assigned train
1dispatcher, who is required to perform service
on the rest days assigned to his position,
will be paid at rate of time and one-half
for service performed on either or both of
such rest days."
"CARRIER LETTER,
FEBRUARY 20, 1952
. . . .when a train dispatcher is used
to relieve the excepted chief dispatcher on
other than the latter's rest day, he will be
compensated at one and one-half times the
pro-rata daily rate of the excevted chief
dispatcher position for the second tour of
duty within a 24-hour period or for work
performed on the rest day or days assigned
to his position. When a train dispatcher
is used to relieve the excepted chief
dispatcher on the latter's rest day, he
will be compensated for such work at prorata daily rate of the excepted chief
dispatcher position in accordance with
the letter agreement of August 6, 1948."
(Underlining added)
"CARRIER
LETTER, NOVEMBER 19, 1952
2. On the days Train Dispatcher is relieving
excepted Chief Dispatcher, it is understood Train Dispatcher takes the responsibility for proper per
Dispatcher's work, and that his working
conditions, including hours of service,
will be the same as apply to Chief
Dispatcher."
i
i
Award Number 20377
Docket Number TD-20419 Page
3
The claim is clearly supported by Article III (a) (1) and
the letter Agreement of February 20, 1952. The texts of such
article and letter Agreement specifically provide that time and onehalf shall be paid to a train dis
day. This provision squarely fits the facts of this case and the
claim must be sustained. This Board has heretofore considered and
rejected the herein arguments of Carrier that pro rata pay was justified because of the Claimant's r
the November 19, 1952 letter supersedes the February 20, 1952 letter
in respect to the relief situation involved in this dispute. See
Award No. 20138 which involved the same parties and property, and
which found for the Employees on an identical claim arising under
the same Agreement language quoted hereintofore. To the reasoning
laid out in Award No. 20138, we would add our doubts that the general language in the November 19, 1
negate and nullify the specific language contained in the February
20, 1952 letter Agreement.
FINDINGS: 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 wit
the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and
The Agreement was violated.
A W A R D
Claim sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 6th day of September 1974.