NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

Award Number 23468

THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-23424

Martin F. Scheinman, Referee

(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen

PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

(St. Iouis-San Francisco Railway Company

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company:

On behalf of Brother D. L. Miller, Traveling Signal Maintainer, for eight hours' overtime pay for Saturday, March 17, 1979, under Rule 46, account working with rail detector car." (Carrier file: D-9872)

OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, D. L. Miller, Traveling Signal maintainer, was called on March 17, 1979, at 7:00 a.m., the sixth day of his

work week, to assist a Sperry Rail Test Car. 0n the course of this assignment, Claimant bonded two defective rails and subsequently filed for eight (8) hours overtime.

The Organization contends that Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties by denying this overtime. The primary rule cited by the organization is Rule W. It states:

"Rule 46.

(a) A traveling signal maintainer will be assigned an individual territory and may be paid on either a monthly or hourly basis as shown in Appendix Item 1. If he is paid on a monthly basis, such rate shall cover all service performed during the calendar month except:

(1) He will be assigned one regular rest day per week. Sunday if possible. Rules applicable to hourly rated employes shall apply to service on such assigned rest day. Ordinary maintenance of construction work not heretofore required on Sunday will not be required on holidays or the sixth day of the workweek. If such work, however, is performed, rules applicable to hourly rated employes shall apply.

(2) When required to perform work outside the limits of his assigned territory on a holiday, on the sixth day of his workweek, or outside of his regular eighthour assignment on any other day, he will be add compensated for such work in accordance with rules applicable to hourly rated employes.

Award Numt n-r % 3 Page

Docket Number L -23424

(3) Such time as he lays off of his own accord shall be deducted."

The Organization argues that the work performed by Claimant was ordinary maintenance or construction work which took place on the sixth day of his work week. It contends that when such work is performed, rules for hourly rated employes apply.

Carrier, on the other :and, coma.^s that the work performed -vas not ordinary maintenance or construction work because the Sperry Rail Test Car is not operated regularly and therefore, is not service routinely performed as ordinary maintenance. Further, it contends that the cla_- .- payment is excessive even if the work performed on the claim date had been ordinary maintenance or construction work.

In this dispute, from the evidence presented, it is clear that the operation of the rail test car, which is used to detect faulty places in rails, occurs regularly about once a year. It is also apparent that the resultant bonding of faulty rails is routine signalman work.

The record does not establish that the performance of the work was unusual. We are not convinced that its performance was extraordinary. As such, we are compelled to reject Carrier's contention that the work performed by Claimant was not ordinary maintenance or construction work.

Here, a signalman performed the ordinary maintenance or construction work on the sixth day of his work week. Therefore, Claimant must be compensated consistent with the terms of Rule 46(a).

As to the amount of overtime due Claimant, it should be noted that

there is a discrepancy about how long it actually took to perform the d..sputed
work. In any event, we are convinced that the e_ 'it (8) hours overtime claimed
is excessive. Therefore, we find that Claimant should be c nsated at the
overtime rate for a minimimm call of two (2) hours and forty) minutes as
per the call provision in the Agreement.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole rep.ord 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, 1931+;

That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

Award Number 23468 Page 3

Docket Number SG-231+24

That the Agreement was violated.

A W A R D

Claim sustained in accordance with the Opinion.

NATIONAL RAT:IROAD AD~TUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Third Division

Attest:

Executive Secretary

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of December 1981.