NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number CL-21504
David C. Randles, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and
( -Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
( Express and Station Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Texas,and_Pacific.Railway.Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
(GL-8021) that:
1. Carrier violated the Clerks' Rules Agreement, and in
particular Rule 25 (a) and (f) of the Agreement, when, on Februarj
8,
1974, it failed and refused to compensate Mr. E. 0'Con for his time,
and services rendered (Carrier's file 302-157).
2. Carrier shall now be required to compensate Mr. 0'Con
for three hours at the pro rata rate of his Telegrapher's position,
Marshall, Texas, for February
8,
1974.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant E. 0'Con, a regularly assigned C.T.C.
Telegrapher Operator No. 012, Marshall, Texas,
having assigned hours of 12 midnight to
8:00
A.M., Sunday through
Thursday, and regularly assigned rest days of Friday and Saturday,
completed his work day at
8:00
A.M. on February 8, 1974 and was released from duty. Claimant went home, went to bed and
when a Road Foreman of Engines telephoned claimant awaking him and
requested information regarding engine trouble on No. 123's connection
at Marshall. Texas on February 7, 1974.
Since Crxrier officer utilized claimant's time to secure information from him while he was off d
filed a claim for payment pursuant to Rule 25(a) and (f) of the Agreement.
"(a) Except as otherwise herein provided, time excess of
eight (8) hours, exclusive of the meal period, on any day
will be considered overtime and paid on the minute basis
at the rate of time and one-half."
"(f) Employes notified or called to perform work not continuous with, before or after the
be allowed a
minim__,
of three (3) hours for two (2) hours'
work or less, and if held on duty in excess of two (2) hours,
time and one-half will be allowed on a minute basis."
Award Number 21652 Page 2
Docket Number CL-21504
The question, then, before this Board is whether or not a
telephone call to an employe,requesting information relative to his
job while he is at home, constitutes work. Rule 25 (a) provides for payment for overtime work contin
and Rule 25 (f) provides for payment for work not continuous with the
employe's assigned work day. In this matter, 25 (f) is the rule which
this Board deems applicable.
The Carrier on the property stated in each of its declinations of the claim that the claims^<
the Carrier.
If the Rule 25 (f) contained the word "service;" then the Board
would consider the concept of service relative to a telephone call.; however, Rule 25'(f) specifical
to his assignment to perform work.
The Organization cites numerous awards to support the claim
which we do not feel are exactly relevant in that they refer to service
as it applies to investigations, etc.
Directly relative to the claim is Award 6107 in which the
Board 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." Numerous other awards of this Division support
this interpretation of Rule 25(f), and, therefore, on that basis, we shall
deny the claim.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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 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 Board has jurisdiction
over the dispute involved herein; and
Award Number 21652 Page
3
Docket Number CL-21504
That the Agreement was not violated.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
I.
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of August 1977.