Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

(a) Carrier violated the Clerks' Agreement when it failed to compensate Mr. Harvey L. Johnson, Clerk-Telegrapher, Salisbury, North Carolina, for eight hours at pro rata rate for attending an investigation as a company witness outside his assigned working hours on Friday, laveaber 16, 1973.

 (b) Carrier shall be required to compensate Mr. Harvey L. Johnson for the difference between two hours and forty minutes at the rate of time and one-half and eight hours at straight time 440.08 per defy.

 OPINIOH OF BOARD: Claimant was required to attend an investigation by
 Carrier as a witness, in a matter in which he had no personal responsibility. He appeared at the investigation at 11:00 A.M. and remained until the close of the hearing at 12:30 PA. on Friday, November 16, 1973. Subsequently, on the same day, he worked his regular assignment 3:00 P time pay. He also received pay for two hours and 40 minutes at time and one half (which is the "call" payment) for attending the investigation. Petitioner alleges that Claimant should have received eight hours pro rata pay for the time at the investigation rather than the "call", thus triggering this dispute.





                    Docket Number CL-21192


        "(b) For work in advance of and which contimes to starting time of regular work period, employees will be paid a mW-1m allowance of one hour at time and one-half rate for one hour or less, additional time calculated on minute basis at same rate.


        MU H-3 -- ATTHIDIAV COURT. THWTIGATICf8, ETC.


        (a) Employees required by the Company to attend court, as a witness for the Company in connection with cases in which they have no personal responsibility, shall be paid the save compensation that they would have received had such interruption not taken place; if not regularly assigned, such payment shall be the -in am rate for their class of work. For such service on regularly assigned relief days, payment shall be at rate of time and one-half. This rule contemplates payment of a basic day for each day such service is required; no overtime payment rill be made. All mileage and witness fees will be assigned to the Company. Necessary actual expenses while away from headquarters will be allowed.


        (b) 3g;loyees required to attend an investigation or hearing in which they have no personal responsibility will 'be paid under this role."


Petitioner argues that payment in this dispute is governed by Rule 8-3 alone and Bale G-2 is not applicable, with particular reference to the language of Rule R-3 (b). In addition, the Organization has submitted instances of pqmmts made previously for a fall eigh support of its position. Petitioner insists that the language of Rule H-3 which " ....contemplates peymant of a basic day for each day such service is required" mandates the payment of a fall eight hours to Claimant far bie service while attending the investigation. The organization's position is summed up in its submission as follows:

        "The Organization interprets Rule H-3 to mean that if an employe on duty is used u a Company witness, he will receive his regular pay for that day without any reduction. If an employe is used as a Company witness on a regularly assigned work day, but oritside his assign" work bouss he will receive eight hours par at straight time regardless of the length of time involved in the investigation. If used u a Company witness on one of

                    Award Number 21075 Page 3

                    Docket Number CL-21192


        "his regularly assigned rest days, he will receive eight hours at time and one-half. Under no consideration will the employe receive less than eight hours pay when serving as a Company witness in an investigation. absolutely no provision in the Agreement for an employe serving as a Company witness in an investigation to be paid under the Call Rule."


Carrier takes issue with Petitioner's point of view on several grounds. First, it is claimed that the history of Rule H-3 clearly demonstrates the intent to protect an employs from lose when required to lay off from his regular position in order to attend court or an investigation. Further in justification of its position, Carrier alleges that attending an investigation at carrier's request is "work" or "service" and has been interpreted "'such by a long series of Awards by this Hoard and other Divisions as well. On this theory, work before Claimant's regularly scheduled reporting time should be compensated as required by the work Rules (in this case Rule G-2) even though it was time spent at an investigation. Carrier also conten language of the Rule H-3 which provides in addition to the provision for a basic day's pay the phrase "no overtime payment will be made." Finally, Carrier takes issue with the prior settlements cited by Petitioner in that most of the settlements were made by local officers (having no precedential value) and further that the circumstances in moat of those cases are not given.

 We cannot credit the claim settlements cited by Petitioner as precedents in interpreting the Agreement. This Hoard has dealt with this issue on many occasions; in Award 14536, we said:

        "The organization in its submission to the Hoard lays stress on the fact the Carrier has settled and/or compromised similar claims on previous occasions. This Hoard, on any number of occasions, has held that offers of compromise and settlement and previous settlements of claims are not evidence of anything, and not admissible as evidence."


Petitioner's position then, must lie solely on its argument as to the meaning of Rule H-3; it has no other support. We do not view as reasonable the organization's construction that under m circumstances will the employe receive less than eight hours' pay when serving as a Carrier witness in an investigation. Such an interpretation flies in the face of the phrase that no overtime payment will be made and also is contrary to the view long held, supplied no supporting evidence for its view and its argument is flawed, the Claim must fail.
                    Award Number 21075 page 4

                    Docket 1Rmber CL-21192


FIRDIAGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, after giving the
 parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and
 upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

 That the Carrier and the Itmplayes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Elnployes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; end

        That the Agreement vas not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          RATIONAL RAILROAD AWMTKHIT HOARD

                          Br Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of May 1976.