(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Southern Pacific Transportation Company
 ( (Pacific Lines)
STAT='·EPT CF CLAIM: Claims of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
 of Railrcad Signalmann en the Southern Pacific
 Transportation Company:
Cia im ilC. 1
(a) ine Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Pacific
 Lines) violated and/or misapplied the Agreeme-.t between the Ccucany
 and its Employes in the Signal Department, represented by the _roti:er
 hood of Railroad Si6naLaen effectiv=_ October 1, 19',·'- a^d par.,._.-_rl~r
 ^:ule5, i3, 16, i7, 23, and Az) 'H' which resulted in viol3tiC-. Cf
Bale 72. I

 (b) Leading Signalman George 3. Cornish, Signal Gang Nn. ~, C'=kr idge, be allowed additional co wpnsation for eigght ;C3) hC'..L S 3 t his straig^t time rate for loss of double time rate cn February =u, 197:.

Cla i_u 1';o. 2
(a) The Southern Pacific Transportation Ce=any (Pacific Lines), viola tefi and/or misapplied' the Agreement between the C- any and its emplcyes in the signal department represented by the P.rotherhocd of Railroad Signalmen, eff rules 11(3). 11 (b;, 16 and 17, ·ihich resulted in '/iviaticr of .^.1u-e 72.


,
 S2^ rameCtC. California, 'DE all-owed e'_gh !:Curs additional _-_ :o'.'a= ',
 tit= pay which he was deDriveC of when he was se..^.t home Err not
 c=r^itted to work his regular assigned eight (8) :.our work =eriod _n
 _'_?rch 26, 1975, to avoid additional double tine payment after_
zae nty-two a- d one-half hourrs CCtnllouss ti-".:o.
        /,arr-.·_ =ile. SIG 61-52;

                  Award Number 21913 Page 2

                  Docket :unoer SG-21691


OPINION OF BCA?.D: This dispute, involving two claims, deals with
 the allegation by Petitioner that Claimants -.rere
 i=roperly deprived of double-time pay under certain circumstances.

 In Claim No. 1, Claimant Cornish had regularly assigned hours
 of 7:30 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. Monday through Friday. On the relevant dates .
 Claimant worked on February 27, 1975 from 7:30 A.M. to Midnight and on
 February 28, from I-iidnight to 1:30 A.M. whey. 1-.e was released from duty
 and instructed to reocrt for duty on his regular assignment at 9:3G A.M.
 .,
 ....to avoid payrenu of puh=rive rate for his regularly assigned hours, pursuant to the specific provision of Rule 16 .... For this service he was paid eight (,":,) hours straight time for the first eight (8) hours work, eight (3J hours at time and one-half for the next eight (8) hours a.^.G double time f OT' the period on February 28 from iiidnigh't to 1:30 A.M. ?:e also received straight time for the eight. (S) hours of his regular ass*=-=..~ht on February 28th in spite of reporting two hours late as in sT.rruCLed.

 In Cla=n ::c. 2, Cla~.;at ;:ise with regularly assigred pours of 7:30 A.M. to 2+:30 P.M. Monday through Friday had a closely related circu_nstance. On t·2rch 25, 1975 he worked from 7:30 A.M. to I:Iidnight and on I·iarch 26th from Midnight to 6:30 .=..'.d. at which point he was instructed not to- report for his regular assign.-ent on that day, also to avoid payment of the punitive rate. Mr. Wise received straight time for the =first eicht (8) hours, time and one-half for the next eight (8) hcur s and double time for the next six and one-half (6 1 %2) hours. For his regular shift on March 26th, which a did not work, he received
 s-a' a
 tz ight --time p y.

 Pertinent portions of the following riles are applicable to this dispute:

            "ri= 13. Shifts.


            '==a starting Lime of employes shall not be C::anoed without -first gi-,ring the employes

            a _-~ec IX k-0) hours' -otice.

            ~ ted thirty-s-I f1z" Starting times shall net be :L::-porari.ly ='.'.^_a nd fnr .he purpose of avoiding c~ert~_-e.

        Award 17-:=ter 21913 Page 3

        Docket jumber SG-21694


"3'= 16. Overtime.
f

 Time worked after sixteen (16) hours of continuous service shall be computed on the actual minute basis and maid for at the double time rate until employe is released for eig~,.t (8) consecutive hours ti:ce off duty. =or purposes of computing sixteen (16) hours of continuous service, as referred to herein, actual tine worked shall be counted from t=..e on duty until relieved for eight (8) consecutive hours time off duty.
It is understood that nothing in this rule requires that the Carrier retain an employe on duty at punitive rate of pay."
"RUTZ, 17. Absorbing Overtime.
3mployes shall not be required to suspend work during the regular hours for the purpose of absorbing overtime."
"BU'.L 23. Established Hours and Days.
The regularly established daily working hours shall not be reduced below eight (8) per day, nor shall the regularly established number of working days be reduced below five (j) per week, except in weeks in which positions are established or abolished, unless agreed to in writing by a _:ajority of 'he emp1oyes affected through their General Chairman, except that saic ziaber of days nay be reduced in a week in 77f-_ich holidays (~acse specified in Rule l j j occur, by the number of such hol lday S. "
      -_ua~:aa~y aP* ,--o cc;aao==ss= s,.:a:-_ o= anr, S°ut·.a~_a To ssoT ,s~u~z2- auT S.:ancJ Z~ aTr:!

                                          -c_


    "Pep a.IoN_ ZaTLS@a Swnou /8) ..~'~LC

    .1loV~. YLaOl: O4 Pa,'-0 ,lLc ~Ou a,7aM SWPraTBT S^'-=G J

    asa;:r To -coq u: :~:x<Ts r1oLac, oaonpaa eq og qcu a,xa

    sstou, _zLv.zom pawsTTq2;sa F_Ta2TnSa.T at17 °£Z~ a-[ng :z;pzLrl

                                          .T


                'LT aTr'd j o SUO T S u1OSd aqq o-, fa2.z~.uoo

      !,TTOaa Lp aJaw, as TaasD 3o suo-EaO2 aUZ ' SaiL?= DUTq~,zas

      s2TrLcjaa smat;T T2 Pq on YD?

        OT TTI°nO.iq uaaq faiI1 peg

        oT aTng aap:m tad 9.TT-nmd. c= paTnTWa uaaq ak2J

      PTflol.i S2',aTajj_2T,7 qq.2y~ pa1TT-~p2 ,IeTS.I20 SIGTS-L- q10 q u'I '£


        '£E pus LT saTng 6 Tae Lno :=,zed

        '2uasiaa.Isa a.z T~ua aJq To qxaq.uo-_ au q. ct OGVG T

        ac ~st= la~ea ar,TTTund au- q.e fiqrp uo a~oT::a ue

        uT~Tas oq aatassl saaTrioaa aTna q.2uq. UT Sul-,mou

        Te·l~_ uoTSTnoJCL SST UT 9T @Trxr do uoTaBOTTdde army 'z


          '£T ~~ng ~o uoT:uaaez;uoO ~O~ZTp u-[ quo=2zd as:Tazar_o p:One c- saTT:2~ : q paSua-:,Z~ S~Ni aii.T; 372'4ZBSS Syi~STMZOD '-je T 'O;~ IL-~2T~ uI


    :SbiOTTOl- Se paZT.i='15 eq rza S1uomRiae SO'= S,,zauOTTC'4ad


    -aJTnaas anal=.zaao Papua=xa sLauq

    aa1~72 ou=ou zt7aaaU, Squm- C'2 T'J O."-1 oil'.4. Sutpuas 70 aSOdznd eq-. Sub: STq-

    ?~2q4 rnq ucTYsanb ous- aaaa~T gsTq aTqnopuTFed pTO1,e oqaapzo ut

    STu:~7 °u2Zaohi aHTnnaa 2u-Eanp F-,,np 770 OS O'q. SaiOTdiuza =mSTsuT OT 4T.f'Ta

    a,1T seti aaiaasy aatlqaux s; a~..TdSTp siu'.~ uT UoTssonb aT05 au7


            ~~'SSOT JOnS

            .~.oa pas"nqtsp.z eq TT2tjs quaczaaaf s-E4; ,jo

            uoTWod .Sue fo uoireoTTddas-m ,zo uoTr2ToTn

            To asnaoaq S`u-~ujpa To SSOT S.za I

                                      11 ns

              oua: quaaaa°2 s 7t71 .Sq pa.zanoO af,O Ldi:ta u;s


                      's5uTU.7z- JO ssO7 'ZG T7fld.:,


                  t~T~,-~^ .,a^vi;t'-njj a.aS;JJQ

i a"d ETA T~ ~aq~n: P-'I2r.)f
                  A-:!arC Nu.lbe" 110113 - -o

                  Docket :au: :_:;er ....-=1074


Carrier's arguments are oared largely or. the DrcrLSe the-, there is nothing in the n=reement ornich requires Carrier to :work t_.-employer or. their regular as t'-4. S dispute. Carrier's nosition is based on the zpeci:_iz langaae Rule 16 which e:~ressly recognizes that Carrier is not required to retain an a=loye or, duty at the punitive :-ate of pay. Carrier also points out that Rule 16 is a specific rule which takes precedence over other general rules in the Agreement. Carrier also cites ::card 16739 involving the same Carrier 21G the BrotherGOd of i·21ntena.^_Ce O_a:,' EmplsyeS In a closely related dispuT.e and similar contractual provisions. In that disou.te Carrier requested pro rata CO^mensation as reCC'rerable in parallel C1rCLL:.stances.
Initially, ore do not -riev there to be a conflict between tile provisions o? Rule to and any ether rule cited. As -his 3card held i_^. .;ward 16739 there is no reason to conclude that the provisions o_ R'.Le 16 nullify the injunctions o_° ule 17. dditionally, it =:. noted that Rule lo' is not "more specific" than Rules 13, 17 or 23.
:mile we do not view most rights in agreements to be "absolute' it is noted that Carrier's araLwaenr with respect -z;o its right to refrain from retaining an e=lo^e on cuty at the punitive rate, is clearly not an absolute right either. The Board stated, interestin~,'y, in award 16060:

          "This Board, in its interpretation of similar rules negotiated with other Carriers by this same Organization, has held absolute the prohibition that `employer grill not be required

          to susoend work duri ' ng re~-,?ar hours "


The facts in this dispute, consistent with those in Award 16739, indicate that on the dates herein, Claimants' regularly assigned hours were from. 7:30 A.M. t0 4:00 -F.?. and had not Carrier -instructed the:ri otherwise, the', 'would have wor~:ed on averti-a during z.~Ose hcur"s. There is no indication in Award 16719 as t0 ..hy the ?etiti·Gner d:d n of request °_ ?JLl."litive rate nor was there a nJ ·__°indin_~ on that iS5').e.' ,-,his dispute are find that Carrier admi-~tedly required Cla_^lan_ts to suspend work during their regularly assigned hours :or tae _ru:-~cse of absorbing Crerti_2e i_^_ violation of Rae 17. ACCOrainelf, t_"_.. iaal
                        -witl- Rule 72.

must be sustain en, in conf
                  or-_ity :ri_.. Rule 72.

                    Award Number 21913 page o

                    Docket Number SG-21694


        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 has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement was violated.
              A W A R D


i r~R ? 3 1°i~

 Claim sustained.

                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: · PA-414 Q,
 Executive Secretary
          Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of February 19,'8.