NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMNT HOARD
THIRD DIMIOT Docket Number SG-21990
Herbert L. Mars, Jr., Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Sigfalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Long Island Rail Road Company
$TAT.' OF CLAIM: "Claims of the General Ccamittee of the Brotherhood
of Railroad Signalmen on the Long Island. Rail Road:
Claim No. 1 - Case SG-35-75
Claim on behalf of T&T Maintainer A. Shoemaker for reimbursement of $3.00 meal expense incurred
Claim No. 2 - Case SG-36-75
Claim on behalf of T&T Maintainer P. Leonardi for reimbursement of $2.95 meal expense incurred S
OPINICK OF HOARD: Two Claimants herein, regularly scheduled to work
from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., were directed to
work from 5:00 a. a. to 4:00 p.m. -- eleven hours -- on September 2,
1975. Under Rule 19(c) claim was made for meal reimbnrament, which
was denied by the Carrier.
Rule 19(c) reads:
"31'Vloyes shall not be required to work more than
10 hours without a second meal period, except in
cases of emergency. The time of such second meal
period and subsequent meal periods shall be not
leas than 30 minutes, and such time shall be paid
by the Campanr. Such meal periods shall not
terminate the continuous work period. The meal
periods subsequent to the second meal period shall
be at intervals of four hours.
Employee shall be
reimbursed for the meals referred to in this
paragraph (c) if the meals are not furnished by the
Company.
Award Humber 22148 Page 2
Docket Number SG-21990
Carrier defends its position on the basis that the additional
hours, scheduled in advance, were prior to the start of the bulletined
work hours and that payment for meal reimbursement under identical
circumstances has not been paid in the past 21 years.
The Organization rests its argument on the clear language of
the role.
Generally accepted in numerous previous awards is the
principle that past practice cannot be determinative where the language
of the Agreement is clear and-uneqnivoeal~ The Hoard finds Rule
19(c), particular7,y as to the final sentence, does not yield to more
than One interpretation. If the Carrier wished to give the limited
interpretation to Rule 19(c) it sets forth in this dispute, it has had
many opportunities in the past to seek to modify the applicable
language.
The Board finds, therefore, that meal reimbursement is due
under the circumstances of this dispute. Allowance must be made,
however, for the Carrier's position that no claims have been paid for
meal reimbursement under identical circumstances in the past. The
Organization offered only a general statement but no specific prooF
to the contrary. The Carrier should not be penalized retroactively
for applying its apparently unchallenged interpretation to the rule.
The Boesd will sustain the Organization's position as to the
clear meaning of Rule 19(c), requiring a meal reimbursement where
employes work more than 10 hours, bat will not require a monetary
payment to settle this claim.
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 dime 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction
over the dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement was violated.
Award Number 22148 Page
3
Docket Number SG-21990
A W A R D
Claim sustained to the extent and is the manner set forth
in Opinion.
NATICKAL RAILROAD ADJUSTWBT HOARD
$r Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Minois, this 31st day of July 1978.