NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-21359
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Robert W. Blanchette, Richard C. Bond and
( John H. McArthur, Trustees of the Property
( of Perm Central Transportation Company, Debtor
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
of Railroad Signalmen on the former Pennsylvania
Railroad Company:
System Docket 1006
Central Region - Allegheny Division Case 16/1-74
(a) Claim that the Carrier violated the current Agreement and
particularly Article 4, Section 22(a) (2) and Article 2, Section 8(b)
when on or about January 6, 1974, all employees on Seniority District 16,
were verbally ordered by Carrier officials to report for work at 8:00 AM
(D.S.T.) instead of at their regularly advertised starting time at 7:00 AM
(D.S.T.), without their positions being abolished and readvertised as called
for in the above stated rule.
(b) Claim that this action was taken in an arbitrary manner,
without cause or reason and without the consent of this organization and
by so doing, the end of the tour of duty was extended from 3:30 PM to
4:30 PM. Thereby placing these employees on overtime status under the
provisions of Article 2, Section 8(b).
(c) Claim that each and every employee affected be paid one (1)
hour at the time and half rate of pay, for each assigned working day
beginning with January 7, 1974 and continuing until such time that this
illegal practice is discontinued.
OPINION OF BOARD: our review of the record before us shows that the
instant dispute grows out of the same set of
circumstances described in our recent Award 21476 involving these same
parties, to wit:
"Pursuant to Federal law passed in response to the
energy 'crunch' during the Winter of 1973-74 the Nation
went on mandatory year-round Daylight Savings Time (DST)
in January 1974; rather than, as had been customary, in
April through October. We take arbitral notice of the
fact that the days are shorter in January than in April
and recall, for example, school children wending their
Award Number 21752 Page 2
Docket Number SG-21359
"way to classes and awaiting buses in darkness during
the late Winter of 1973-74. Likewise, the change to
D.S.T. in January affected many workers who thereby
found themselves traveling and reporting to work in
the dark pre-dawn hours.
The employes;herein involved were employed in
Carrier's Signal Department and, prior to January 6,
1974 their assigned hours were 7:00 am to 3:30 pm
Central Standard Time (C.S.T.). Effective January 6,
1974 by the 'Daylight Savings Time Act of 1973'
Standard Time was advanced one hour thus giving
Claimants' assigned hours of 7:00 am to 3:30 pm
Central Daylight Savings Time (D.S.T.). The net
effect of the legislature was no change in 'clock
time' for Claimants but a one-hour earlier 'solar
time' for reporting to work. i.e. Clock time of
7:00 am DST was the equivalent of a solar time of
6:00 AM). Because at 6:00 am solar time (7:00 am DST)
it was still dark in January 1974, Carrier on January 4,
1974 gave oral instructions to Claimants to report at
8:00 am D.S.T. beginning January 7, 1974."
Also it should be noted that the affected employes in Seniority District 16
were notified by written notice dated March 22, 1974 that, effective
March 25, 1974, their starting time of 8:00 a.m. (D .S .T.) would revert
to 7:00 a.m. (D.S.T.). Therefore, the 8:00 a.m. (D.S.T.) starting time
was in effect from January 7, 1974 to March 24, 1974 and the claim period
is so restricted.
So far as we can determine the sole substantive difference
between our earlier Award on this subject and the instant case is reliance
by the Organization upon different Agreement provisions herein.
Specifically, the Organization alleges in the present case violations
of Article 2, Section 8(b) and Article 4, Section 22(a) (2); and in the
earlier case it sought to prove violations of Rules 5 and 30(d). As we
view the matter, however, the central question in this case, as in
Award 21476, was whether the change from 7:00 a.m. (D.S.T.) to 8:00 a.m.
(D .S .T.) was a "change in starting time caused by the adoption of Daylight
Savings Time." If so, then by the express language of the sole exception
in Article 4, Section 22 it "shall not be considered cause for advertisement of the position." We ar
adoption of Daylight Savings Time" when given its plain and ordinary
meaning must cover the change of starting times which affected Claimants in
January 1974. That change therefore was within the clear exception to
Award Number 21752 Page 3
Docket Number SG-21359
the readvertising requirement of Article 4, Section 22. Nor is there
any basis, therefore, for the derivative allegation that Carrier violated
Article 2, Section 8(b). We conclude that there is no Agreement support
for this claim and it must be denied.
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 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
That the Agreement was not violated.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
e
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of October 1977.