NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number TD-20624
Robert A. Franden, Referee
(American Train Dispatchers Association
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Soo Line Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the American Train Dispatchers Association
that:
(a) The Soo Line Railroad Company (hereinafter referred to as
"the Carrier"), violated the Agreement in effect between the parties, Rule
22 (a) thereof in particular, when it refused to compensate the individual
Claimants named in part (b) below for loss of time on their regular assignments on the claim dates s
and instructed by Carrier, Claimants did not perform service on their regularly assigned positions o
the Agreement, thereby losing time.
(b) Because of said violation, the Carrier shall now compensate
the individual Claimants as follows:
(1) Claimant T. M. Hagen eight (8) hours prorata of trick dispatcher's rate for each date Octobe
29, November 4, 11, 12, 13, December 16, 23, 24, 25, 30,
31, 1970, January 1, 6, 7, 8, 13, 1971;
(2) Claimant P. M. McNamara eight (8) hours prorata of Night Chief Dispatcher's rate on each dat
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, December 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 1970, March 2,
3, 1971;
(3) Claimant R. L. Hamilton eight ($) hours
pro-rata of trick dispatcher's rate on each date November
5, 6, 7, December 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 1970, March 4,
5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 1971, and eight (8) hours
pro-rata of Night Chief Dispatcher's rate on each date
March 14, 15, 21, 22, 1971;
(4) Claimant D. J. Binder eight (8) hours prorata of trick dispatcher's rate on each date Octobe
30, 31, November 6, 7, 13, 20, 27, December 4, 11, 18, 19,
1970, January 15, 1971.
Award Number 20688 Page 2
Docket Number TD-20624
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimants were the regularly assigned train dis
patchers in the Carrier's Stevens Point, Wisconsin
train dispatch office. On the claim dates, the Claimants were instructed
by the Carrier to perform services other than on their regularly assigned
positions. The Claimants were compensated on the days in question under
Rule 3(c) which requires, with some exceptions, payment at the pamitive
rate for performing service outside of their regularly assigned position.
Rule 3 (c) reads as follows:
"(c) Assigned assistant and/or night chief dispatchers
and trick train dispatchers who are directed by the
management to perform service as trick train dispatcher
outside of their regular assigned position will be compensated at the rate of time and one-half of t
train dispatcher position filled. Penalty time under
this agreement will not apply to employes who obtain new
assignments through the exercise of seniority, until initial
service performed on new assignment, or when directed to
perform service as chief, assistant and/or night chief
dispatcher."
The Claimants allege that due to the provisions of Rule 22 (a)
they are entitled, in addition to compensation under Rule 3 (c), to compensation at the pro-rata rat
as follows:
"(a) Loss of time on account of the Hours of Service
Law or in changing positions by direction of proper
authority shall be paid for at the rate of the position
for which service was performed immediately prior to
such change. Time lost in voluntarily exercising seniority will not be paid for."
It is the Carrier's position that Rule 3(c) was included in the
agreement to cover the specific set of circumstances present in this case.
The organization takes the position that inasmuch as Rule 3 (c) does not
contain an estoppel the additional compensation under Rule 22 (a) is required.
We are persuaded by the record and the history of Rule 3(c) that
said Rule was intended to cover such circumstances as those present in the
instant case. The specific purpose of the Rule is to determine compensation
for work performed other than on regular assignment. The Carrier compensated
the Claimants as required by the Rule.
Award Number 20688 Page 3
Docket Number TD-20624
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 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
That the Agreement was not violated.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSMIENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of April 1975.
Labor Member's Dissent to Award 20688, Docket TD-20624
As the Statement of Claim in Award 20688 shows, the claims were based
on Rule 22 (a) and the record in Docket TD-20624 contained sufficient
Award authority to require that at least some, if not all, of the claims
be sustained.
Award
20583
correctly recoEpmizes the Employes' primary contention,
stating "The Cranizat_.on taZes the position that inasmuch as Rule
3 (c)
does not contain an estoppei the additional compensation under Rule 22 (a)
is required". Yet Award 20'688 denies the claim, stating "vie are persuaded
by the record and ';,he history of =pile
3
(c) that .said Rule was intended to
cover such ci-cm-ms tances as those present in the instant case''.
Tjnori^S the ;,ward authority in evidence and the .`act that Rule
3 (c)
did not con-aizi a,^. estoppel, .;ward 20688 creates and places an estorpcl in
R le
3 (c) makin; a chez-a
in the :LCreement which is a Lass"; that can cnly
be prcp;:rly ~:.ccompiized by the parties to the Agreement. The Rational
Railroad Adjustment ?'oard was established by the Railway Labor Act ',;o settle
disputes by interpretation or application of Agreements as written. The
Railway- !_abor Act -_co provides the
mcch-iics
whereby Agreements can be
chanocu by to F,«_ties but this is not a function or duty of t:e National
Railroad Adjustment Board.
The 1:ajority in Award 20688 clearly failed to confine itscl_° to r·,atzers
within the scope of the Third Division's -'urisdiction when the l,6reeinent was,
in effect, changed and I must dissent.
W
J. P. Erickson
Labor Member