Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clarks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employee PARTIES To DISPUTE:



1. Carrier violated Rule 21 (a) of the Clarks' Rules Agreement when it arbitrarily deducted 136 hours and 42 minutes' pay from the paychecks of ninety-nine Claimants, Jan Allen, et al. (Carrier's
2. Carrier shall nor be required to compensate the ninety-nine Claimants, Jan Allen, et al., for the amount of money which was deducted from their earnings as set forth in Employes' Exhibits Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.

 OPMOa f8' NOM: There is no dispute with respect to the basic facts
 upon which this Claim is based. Ninety-nine Claimants
 were late to work on four different days for varying amounts of time ranging
 from two minutes to five hours and twenty minutes; the tardiness was attributed
 to two major snowstorms (ten plus inches each) on Decd 19th and 30th, 1973.
 The lateness occurred on December 19, 20, 21 and 31. Petitioner also stated
 that employes in Carrier departments other than the General Accounting De
 partment did not have any deductions made for tardiness on the dale in
 question.








Carrier granted permission for all the employee in the General Accounting Department to end their tour of duty one hour early on December 19 and 31, 1973 because of the weather conditions.


The Organization's position succinctly is that the employee involved did not lose time "voluntarily" were late for work due to the severe saw storms and extremely hazardous driving conditions which were beyond their control. It is argued that if an employe loses time involuntarily, then the eight hours or less phrase of the Rule becomes operative and the eight hour guarantee of compensation applies.

 Carrier, agreeing that Rule 21 (a) is controlling in this dispute, asserts that Claimant a' failure to arrive at work on time on the various dates was solely and directly the consequence of voluntary decisions by each individual as to when to leave for work .in the face of the storm conditions. Carrier asserts t and such failures were the sole reason for the tardiness. Carrier argues that even in the absence of a rule Such as 21 (a) it is not required to compensate an employee who is not ready and willing to work and who does not make himself available to work.

 The key question in this dispute is whether the situation in this dispute can be interpreted as time lost voluntarily or not. We have recently dealt with a similar problem involving the same parties and Rule, Award 20965, and held in that dispute that " ....cases of this type are highly individualistic and often turn on some sound general principles were enunciated in that Award:

        "It seems clear to us that the voluntary time loss proviso in Rule 21 contemplates noneospensation for lost time due to some act of commission or omission by the employs, I.e. some substantial measure of causation either by creating the situation or incident which causes the tardiness or by failing reasonably either to avoid or extricate himself from the delaying situation or incident."


It is noted that in the Award cited above we sustained the Claim after determining that Claimant too
It seems evident that the severe snowstorms on December 19th and 30th lent prima facie support to Petitioner's position that the employes were tardy by virtue of circumstances which were reasonably beyond their control; even though specific evidence for each employe is lacking in this case, the severity of the weather conditions is nadenied and Carrier recognized the problem by permi We recognize the seriousness of tardiness and Carrier's legitimate concerns and desires to preserve the integrity of the work force; however, in the face of the provisions of Rule 21 (a) and the particular circumstances prevalent on December 19th an
                    Award Number 21188 page

                    Docket Number CL-21246


experienced on December 20th and 21st, however, we have a different view. On those dates the employee were well aware of the weather conditions which were caused by the stars on the 19th and knew of the difficulties of coming to work. In the absence of specific information in each individual case we have no weans o reasonable steps to attempt to get to work on time. It must be concluded that Petitioner bas failed to support the Claims for those days with credible evidence. It is noted that Carrier's failure to dock employee in other departments for tardiness on the days in question was certainly not determinative of the dispute herein.

 Carrier argues that seven of the Claimants wrote to Carrier withdraving or terminating their claims- to consider such claims. We note that the record indicates that the seven individuals wrote to the General Chairman not the Carrier, asking that their Claims be withdrawn. Cases cited by Carrier deal with claims which were settled by the individual Claimants and Carriers. It is well established by many sound awards t bargaining easement cannot properlyy disregard or negate the agreement's provisions by his own agreements with an employer (see Awards 4461, 5834, 6858 and 20237 among others). In this instance there vas no settlement of the individual claims, no waivers and indeed no direct comnnication with Carrier; Petitioner hen the right to progress these Claims, since it has the sole right to police and enforce the agreement.

 There appears to be some disagreement with respect to the specific amount of time each Claimant was docked. A joint check of payroll records is the appropriate sears of determining the relevant facts, and will be determinative of this aspect of the dispute.

        pINDIMCB: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral bearing;


That the Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee 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; and

        That the Agreement was violated.

                    Award Number 21188 . Page 4

                    Docket Number CL-21246

                    A W A R D


Claim sustained, with the proviso above, for December 19th and 31st; Claim denied for December 20th and 21st, 1973.

        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT HOARD

        - ~~ By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of August 1976.