NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number CL-21161
Irwin M. Lieberman, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Lake Superior Terminal and Transfer Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood, GL7826, that:
1. Carrier violated the provisions of the parties' Working Agreement effective December 1, 1951,
clerical employes at Superior, Wisconsin, two hours' overtime each for attending safety classes on J
2. Carrier shall now be required to compensate Elmer Haven, Michael
Kelly, Helen Strande, Joseph Eibon, Le Roy Hanson and Mae Hanson two hours'
overtime for January 22, 1974; James Powers, George Spaniol and Sue Carlson
two hours' overtime for January 23, 1974.
OPINION OF BOARD: In this dispute Claimants attended safety classes out
side of their assigned hours; their claims are based on
either the overtime rule of the Agreement or Rule 38 which pertains to being
notified or called for work not continuous with the regular work period.
The issue herein is not new to the industry or to this Carrier and
Organization. It has been held consistently that there are two exceptions
to the requirement that employes be paid for time spent at the Carrier's behest: when the time spent
c:. operating rules) or when such time spent involves a mutuality of interest.
This principle is well expressed in Award 10808, which is one of the leading
cases on this subject:
"At the outset, we are of the opinion that any time of the
employe directed by the Carrier is work or service, with
certain exceptions. Two exceptions are where such time is
for the primary benefit of the employe and in cases where
mutuality of interests exists. Awards have held that
classes on operating rules and safety rules are such exceptions. We are not inclined to enlarge upon
It is noted that in Award No. 24 of Public Law Board No. 194 which
dealt with the identical issue, the Board held that attendance at a safety
meeting outside of regular working hours did not warrant compensation on the
same grounds as that enunciated above. In an Award involving these same
parties, Award No. 7, Special Board of Adjustment, the Board held, inter alia:
Award Number 21267 Page 2
Docket Number CL-21161
"It is true that in this Industry certain kinds of activities
or functions such as attendance at Investigations or safety
rule classes or operating rule classes, in the absence of a
contract provision covering payment for such attendance, are
not considered compeneable duty, much less compeneable at
premium rates of pay."
Although we appreciate Petitioner's concern for the extra time
spent by Claimants in attending the short film, we cannot deal with this
issue of equity. We have no basis to overturn the multitude of Awards
which have consistently held that attendance at classes such as that at
issue herein does not constitute "work" as defined in the Agreement.
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 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 Board has jurisdiction over
the dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement was not violated.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST.
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of October
1976.