NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number
SG-21230
James C. McBrearty, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company
STATEMENT
O'
CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Railway Company et al
On behalf of Signal Maintainer S. W. Parsons, Fort
Payne,
Alabama
for a minimum call payment (2 hours and
40
minutes) for May 1,
1974.
farrier's file:
SG-4007
OPINION OF BOARD: As of May 1,
1974,
the home stations and maintenance
territories of Signal Maintainers on AGS north end
between Chattanooga, Tennessee and Birmingham, Alabama werer
Wauhatchie, Tenn.
(MP 0.0
to MP
25.8)
Fort Payne, Ala. (MP
25.9
to MP
60.8)
Attalla, Ala. (MP
60.9
to MP
100.8)
Trusaville, Ala. (MP
100.9
to MP
135.5)
At approximately 11:20 P.M. on May
1, 1974,
the Train Dispatcher
at Hattiesburg, Mississippi celled Claimant, a Signal Maintainer, by telephone at his home, Fort Pay
Train No.
179
had reported a red signal at north end
(MP 24.8)
of Rising
Fawn, Georgia, and a clear signal at south end
(MP 25.8).
When Claimant
informed the Train Dispatcher that the reported signal trouble was not on
his assigned territory, but rather the assigned territory of Signal ¢lain.
tamer J.
M.
Sevell, home station Wauhatchie, the Train Dispatcher then
called Signal Maintainer Smell. Seven thereupon cleared the reported
signal. trouble, and was paid a minimum call payment of two (2) hours and
40
minutes at time and one-half for the service performed, in accordance
with the provisions of Rule
36.
However, it is the position of Claimant that he also is entitled
to the minimum call payment of two (2) hours and
40
minutes at time and
one-half, pursuant to Rule
36,
for the call which he received at approximately
11:20
P.M. on May 1,
1974.
Rule
36
states:
"Calls--Rule
36:
(Revised - effective September 1,
1949)
Employees released from duty and notified or called to
perform service outside of and not continuous with regular
Award Number 21295 Page 2
Docket Number SG-21230
"working hours will be paid a mini-, allowance of two (2)
hours and forty
(40)
minutes at the rate of time and onehalf for two (2) hours forty (40) minutes work or less.
If held on duty more than two (2) hours forty
(4o)
minutes
they will be paid at the rate of time and one-half computed
on actual minute basis. The time of employees, when
notified in advance, will begin at the time required to
report and end when released at designated point at home
.station. The time of employees called to report at once
will begin at the time called and end at the time they
return to designated point at home station.
Time worked in advance of and continuous with regularly
assigned hours shall be computed on actual minute basis
and paid for at the rate of time and .:ce-half with a
minimum of one (1) hour."
Claimant argues that he was called "to perform service," and did
so in explaining to the Dispatcher about the trouble being on another
territory. Therefore, Claimant maintains he is eligible for the minimum
call pay of two (2) hours and
40
minutes at time and one-half.
Claimant also notes that in Award
18585,
this Hoard upheld a
claim for call-in pay where an employe had been called at 12:30 P.M. on a
Sunday.
In reviewing the instant case, the Hoard finds that the language
of Rule
36
contemplates the employe actually doing something above and
beyond answering a telephone. Otherwise the phrase, "end at time they
return to designated point at home station," would be meaningless.
The Hoard does not deny that Claimant was inconvenienced, but
Rule
36
is definite. It does not pay solely for this type of inconvenience.
It would be necessary to negotiate additional language for Rule
36
in order
to cover the situation as here presented.
Award
18585
can be distinguished from the instant case in that
in the former case, the employe had changed his clothing and was about
ready to leave home when he was called again (20 minutes later) to cancel
the earlier call.
More pertinent to the instant case are Awards
5916, 6107,
and
16119.
Specifically, in Award
6107
the Hoard stated:
"Answering a telephone to give information such as was
done here does not come within the Rules of the Agreement as they are presently written."
Award Number 212951 Page
3
Docket Number SG-21230
Also, in Award 16119 the Hoard pointed out:
" . . a telephone call requesting some information
does not constitute 'extra or relief service' as those
terms are used in the Call Rule. This Rule connotes
a reporting to work by an employe and indeed the language
itself is clear and precise on this point. Answering a
telephone to give information, which at beat involved a
nominal amount of time, was never intended to come within
the purview of the Call Rule."
Consequently, the Hoard has no alternative but, to deny the claim
in the instant case in its entirety.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, 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 Hoard hav jurisdiction over
the dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement was not violated.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMMT HOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
e~-PA44414~
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 12th day of November 1976.