(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The members of B&B Gang No. 3 were not properly paid for the work performed during overtime hours on August 16, 17 and 18, 1972. (System File A-9420/D-7019).

 (2) The members of B&B Gang No. 3 were not permitted to work their scheduled assigned hours on August 16, 17, and 18, 1972 in violation of the Agreement.







OPINION OF BOARD: Claimants, all members of B&B Gang No. 3, effective
 August 14, 1972, had regular work hours of 8:30 P.M. to 5:00 A.M. with a meal period of 12:30 A.M. to 1:00 A.M. On the claim dates, August 16, 17 and 18, these employes were required to work on an emergency basis to repair a burned out bridge on the main line. Their work on the days in question included work outside of their regularly assigned hours.

 The issue in this case is whether or not Claimants were paid properly on the three days of emerg rules cited by Petitioner are as follows:















Carrier claims that Rule 31 of Article 5 is controlling. Pertinent provisions of that rule read:






We do not agree with Carrier's contention that Rule 31 is applicable to the facts of this dispute; t emergency service in which employes are required to leave their home station, which was not the case herein.

 We are concerned about the very basis of this dispute as presented by the parties, since the Carrier admits in its submission that the employes were not paid properly for their service on the dates in question. It is clear that the employees worked long and arduous hours at the behest of the Carrier to correct the emergency situation; at the very least Carrier should have made an effort to compensate these employes properly (which by its own admission it did not) without the long and burdensrnoe procedure of resolving the issue through this Board. This entire matter should have been resolved by the parties on the property.

 It is well established that the work day for any employe is the twenty four hour period beginning with his regular starting time. With this in mind, Rule 7 must be applied to determine the appropriate compensation for the Claimants. It should be noted that Award 20460 is almost directly in point to the issues in this dispute. Though we agree with the position taken by Petitioner on the basic issue, we find that the argument with respect to the double time payments is inaccurate; the double time should apply only after sixteen hours of actual continuous work in the twenty four hour period.

 Although there is no disagreement as to the hours worked by Claimants on the dates in question, from of the Claim will, therefore be remanded to the parties to attempt to arrive at a settlement consistent with the foregoing comments. If satisfactory settlements cannot be arrived at with respect to any particular Claimant or Claimants within sixty days from the date of this Award, any remaining unsettled question may be returned to the Board jointly or ex parts by either side.






That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; an




Claim sustained to the extent indicated in the Opinion; Compensatory portion of Claim is remande

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: i
 :cecutive Secretary

 . Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of November 1974.