(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Clai,n of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
 Railroad Signalmen on the Erie. Lackawanna Railway Company that:

(a) Carrier violated Rules 1, 7, and 17 of the March 1, 1953 Agreement when it failed and/or refused to compensate Signal Foremen W. K. French, L. Gallagher, and J. J. Sykes (New York Division) for work performed on their rest day, Sunday, December 5, 1971.

 (b) Ea~h of the above Signal Foremen be paid account violations cited it, claim (a), as follows:

 W. K. French - 5----hours clearing signal trou'_le at County Road.
 W. K. French 2-2/3 hours calling men to report for work at Mt. Prospect.
 L. Gallager 2-2/3 hours calling men to report for work at Oradel Ave.
 J. J. Sykes 2-2/3 hours calling men to report for work at Signal B96
 and b106.
 J. J. Syk=_s 2-2/3 hours calling men to report for work at West End Intlg.
 J. J. Sykes 2-2/3 hours calling men to report for work at Harrison.
 J. J. Sykes 2-2/3 hours calling men to report for work at West End. Intlg.
 (Ca_rier's File: 205-Sig.)

(a) Carrier violated Rules 1, 7 anc: 17 of the March 1, 1953 Agreement when it failed and/or refused to corr;dnsate Signal Fcremen W. K. French and J. J. Sykes (New York Division)for ·aork performed on their rest days--Sunday, December 19, 1971, January 16 and February 6, 1972.

 (b) =_ch of the above Signal Forem_;. be paid account violations cite:: '- clai.>> (a), as foll~ds:


      12-19-71 W. K. French 2-2/3 hours calling men to report for work

      at DB Drawbridge.

      1-16-72 J. J. Sykes 2-2/3 hours calling men to report for work

      at Roseville Ave. Tower.

      1-16-72 J. J. Sykes 2-2/3 hours calling men to report for work

      at West End Tower.

      1-16-72 J. J. Sykes 2-2/3 hours calling men to report for work

      at West End Tower.

      G-6-72 J_ J. Sykes 2-2/3 hours calling men to report for work

      at Paterson track circuit.


            (Carrier's File 206 Sib.)


      OPINION J1 DJN..D: ~7a the claim dates =:i riuesf i:.i_ each of the Claimant's

                    herein, Messers. Fraz~h, G=Ilagher and Sykes, were

      emplu.7cd by c;arri.r as Fcremen of Mainta_n=rs on the New York Division.

      Each of these employes received a monthly s;,lar~ and was assigned one

      regular rest day per week, Sunday if possit>ie. the instant claims arose

      because Clai..ants allege that they were on several occassions notified

      or called to perfuim worn on their Sunday rest days but were not paid as

      required by the Agreement.


            Frovijions of ':he controlling Agreemen,, upon which Claimants

      rely read in pertinent part as follows:


            "Rule 1. An employu. who is assigned to the duties Foreman of

            of sui-~rvising a group of signal maintainers on. a Maintainers

            seniority district or subdivision ther:of and who

            is not regularly required to perform any of the work

            over which he has supervision shall be classified as

            a f^.or.~an of raintainers.

            Pi0TE: Foreman of maintainers may be

            required to perform wi.tte tf.e

            assistance of r. sigra-.^t;n or sig

            nal maintainer fiel^ pests of ap

            paratus and equipment; however, the

            total time ir. makin-, such tests shall

                        noi: c-Geed 1~0 hour.^, in a calendar year."


            "Hours of ser:ice Rule 7. (a) Foremen of maintainers,

            signal gang foremeand Meadville sf'gnal shop foremen will

            be pail monthly salaries to co::r a=' services rendered

            wit,.: ,z t ad-l:tional pdym_i:t fnr overt a ;a (except rest day)

            or nid:._s ur acJ lays.


J,
                Award Number 20720 Page 3

                Docket Number SG-20389


        "(c) Such employes shall be assigned one regular rest day per week, Sunday if possible. Rules applicable to other employes of the same craft or class shall apply to service on such assigned rest day.


        (d) Where employes now have a bulletined or assigned rest day, conditions now applicable to such bulletined or assigned rest day shall hereafter apply to the sixth day of the work week. Where employes do not now have a bulletined or assigned rest day, ordinary maintenance or construction work not heretofore required on Sunday will not be required on the sixth day of the work week.


        "Rule 17. Employes released fr~m duty and notified or Pay for

        called to perform work outside of and not continuous Calls

        with regular working hours will be paid a minimum al

        lowance of two (2) hours and forty (40) minutes at the

        overtime rate; if held longer than two (2) hours and

        forty (40) minutes they will be paid at the overtime

        rate computed on the actual minute basis. The time of

        employes so notified will begin at the time required to

        report and end when released. The time of employes so

        called will start when they report and end at the time

        they return to designated point at home station."


The facts out of which these claims arose are not in contention. On Sunday December 5, 1971, cited in Claim No. 1, Claimant W. K. French was called out and worked clearing signal trouble at County Road, New Jersey. On the same date, French and each of the other two Claimants were called by dispatchers out of the Hoboken dispatching office, notified that maintainers were needed, and req maintainers under their supervision and called them out to repair the signal trouble. Similarly, on each of the Su maintainers to clear the trouble. For each of the claim dates the Claimants submitted time sheets for the overtime rate on the basis of being required to perform work on their assigned rest days. Carrier refused payment, the claims were timely submitted and handled on the property without resolution, and the dispute comes to us for disposition.
                Award Number 20720 Page 4

                Docket Number SG-20389


Carrier asserts that Claimant French was paid the five hours' overtime for December 5, 1971 on payroll period June 1 through 6, 1972 and accordingly that his claim has no claims, Carrier on the property contended that the function of calling out men to cover trouble was not work as described in Rule 17 and cited Third Division Award No. 10975 as controlling in this case. We note that Carrier in its Ex Parts Submission to this Division argued several other points which close examination of the record reveals were never discussed on the property. Numerous awards buttress the principle that issues and reasons raised for the first time before our Board and not considered on the property, will not enter into our deliberations and decision. See .~&, Awards 11986, 12388, 16061 et al.

 As noted supra, Carrier asserts the affirmative defense of payment regarding the claim of W. K. French for five hours overtime for clearing signal trouble at County Road. Detailed perusal, of the record shows no denial of Carrier's assertion nor any positive statement by Petitioner or Claimant that payment was nut made. Rather, Petitioner merely points to a lack of documentation of the payment. In these circumstances, Petitioner has fail and the claim for five hours must be dismissed.

 Carrier's reliance on Award 10975 in denying each of the remaining claims is misplaced. As we read that Award it is, to the extent relevant and mater-*al, supportive more of Claimants' than of Carrier's position herein. In construing anothe precisely because the calling out of crews was "work" of a supervisor. Petitioner on behalf of Claimants concedes that it is part of the regular work of foremen to call out employees during the work week but that when such work is required on the foreman's rest day it should be compensated at the punitive rate under Rules 7 and 17. Carrier, on the other hand, seems to argue that such duties are inherent in the supervisory position and are "work" for which the foreman is paid a monthly salary covering work days, but that the same functions when performed on the assigned rest day are not "work" for pay purposes. Such logic is not persuasive nor is such a result indicated by the Agreement or prior awards of our Board. Accordingly, we must find that under the Agreement provisions quoted supra, these foremen are entitled to compensation at the overtime rate for two hours and forty minutes, unless more time is spent and then on an actual minute basis, for the time spent calling out men at the direction of Carrier on the foreman's regula
Claimant J. J. -'ykes has demanded a minimum allowance of two hours and forty minutes for each of several outgoing calls made by him apparently pursuant =o a single incoming call from the dispatcher on the several claim dates. Neither the record herein nor the Agreement support such a com-
 pounding of claims.Rule 17 contemplates payment of the minimum
                Award Number 20720 Page 5

                Docket Number SG-20389


allowance for time worked up to two hours and forty minutes and on an actual minute basis for time worked over that amount. The burden is on Claimant to demonstrate time worked over two hours and forty minutes on the rest day. On the instant record there is no question that Claimants performed some work in calling out men on the Sunday rest days December 5 and 19, 1971 and January 16 and February 6, 1972. There is no evidence to indicate the amount of time spent, however, and accordingly the claims may be sustained only to the extent of a two hour and forty minutes minimum allowance for each Claim
        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 ante Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 .Chat this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

 That the Agreement was violated to the extent indicated in the Opinion.

                    A W A R D


a) Cla_'.m sustained as indicated in OF;nion,
 b) Claim of W. K. French for 5 hours at overtime rate on
 :jecemb_r .5, 1971: Claim dismissed.
 Claim o4 W. K. French for 2-2/3 hours at overtime rate on
 December 5, 1971: Claim sustained.
 Claim :.f L. Gallagher for 2-2/3 !iocrs at overtime rate on
 December 5, 1971: Claim sustained.
 Maim oc J. J. Sykes la- ^.-'L/3 :,ours times 4 at overtime
 rate on December 5, 1571: Claim sustained to the extent
 of 1-2/3 ',ours at overtime rate.

 Ciai^. No, :.
a) Claim Lustained as indicated in Opinion.
 b) Claim of W. K. French for 2-2/3 hours at overtime rate on
 December 19, 1971: Claim sustained.
                Award Number 20720 Page 6

                Docket Number SG-20389


        Claims of J. J. Sykes for 2-2/3 hours times 3 at overtime rate on January 16, 1972: Claim sustained to the extent of 2-2/3 hours at overtime rate. Claim of J. J. Sykes for 2-2/3 hours at overtime rate on February 6, 1972: Claim sustained.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: &4&0~
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of May 1975.