NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number CL-21645
James F. Scearce, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and
( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
( Express and Station Raployes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Consolidated Rail Corporation
(former Penn Central Transportation Company)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood,
GL-8153, that:
(a) The Carrier violated the Rules Agreement effective
February 1, 1968, when it utilized the services of Clerk George L.
Voglund on other than his regularly assigned position between the
hours of 10:00 A.M. and 12:00 Noon, and again between the hours of
4:30 P.M. and 6:30 P.M. on Saturday and Sunday November 18 and 19, 1972,
again on Saturday and Sunday, December 2 and 3, 1972, and still again on
Saturday and Sunday, December 9 and 7:0, 1972, and paid him for only four
hours at the applicable overtime rate on each of the six (6) named dates.
(b) The Carrier now be required to compensate Clerk George L.
Voglund for an additional four (4) hours, at the applicable overtime rate
for each of the six (6) named dates.
OPINION OF BOARD: The issue presented for disposition is whether
Claimant is entitled to receive a minimum eight
hours at the overtime rate on each of the rest days on which he worked.
The facts giving rise to this dispute show that Carrier had need
for the services of a regular clerical employe on Saturday and Sunday, on
the dates involved, performing same of the same services in connection with
an Amtrak train that were performed Monday through Friday. Since the
regular employe was not available, Carrier called Claimant, and we can
assume for the purpose of this discussion that Claimant was the proper
employe. The Carrier paid him under the call rule, i.e., two hours at the
punitive rate for each separate call, and Claimant is requesting an additional four hours each date
The Organization relies upon certain rules of the Agreement dealing
with the establishment of positions and the rate applicable on the workdays
thereof, whereas the Carrier leans on the specific provisions of the rest
day rules, Rules 4-1-2(b) and 4 A-6. In Award 9967 (Weston), we considered
an analogous problem dealing with the same contract rules and held:
Award Number 21819
Docket Number CL-21645
Page 2
"Rules 4-A-2(b) and 4-A-6 are controlling for
they deal specifically with the situation where work is
performed by an employe on his rest day. They clearly
indicate that it is not necessary to pay a
min_mlm
of
eight hours in that situation. What they do prescribe is
that a
minimm
of three hours be paid with the additional
guaranty, for those employee actually used to 'relieve'
regularly assigned employee, that they will not be released
before the end of the regular tour of duty."
The rules relied upon by the Carrier are specific and
prevail under the facts of this case. The claim cannot be sustained.
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 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
The Agreement was not violated.
Claim denied.
ATTEST:
"-I~fGG~IG
Ssecutive Secretary
NATIO&1L RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOUM
By Order of Third Division
Dated at Chicago. Illinois, this 16th day of December 1977.