-
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE: . ( (Fort Worth and Denver Hallway Company
:~lA'I'P14Ial'I' OF !:1.1114: "Claim of the 0yatem rotrunittee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) 17w Agreemen, was violated when Trackman II. J. Maxwell, D. It. Wright, B. M. Linquess and J. B. Pnulk were each withheld from service for one work day (May '9, 1979) without just and sufficient cause and without benefit of the procedure stipulated in Agreement Rule 26(a) (System File F-28-79/W-48).
(2) The claimants each be a3 Lowed eight (8) hours of pay for May 29, 1979 and eight (8) hours of holiday pay for May 28, 1979 at their respective straight time rates."
OPINION OF BOARD: The facts in this case arc essentially the same as the
facts in Third Division Award 22904 involving the same
parties. In that dispute, two employes were not permitted to work when they
arrived at their gang location approximatc!l, 40 minutes late. The Organization
proEreawed a claim on the supposition that Rule 26(a), the discipline rule, was
violated nnrt asserted ihnt <hrrier's action constituted n one day's suspension.
Cirrlur contended that Rule ?!,(n) was inapplicable and we concurred with its position. The discipline rule was not relevant to the claim. In our conclusion, we stated in pertinent part that:
In the :.natant case, Claimants, who were track laborers on the section gang headquartered at Channing, Texas, with assigned hours 8:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. Monday through Fridays, reported to work 15 minutes late on Tuesday, May 29, 1979 and were not permitted to work. They contested this action. Similar to Award 22904 they argued that Rule 2G(a) was violated and additionally averred that Rule 21(af was
Award Number 23514Docket Number MW-23471
Page 2
violated. As Rule '6(a) was inapplicable based upon our decision in the aforementioned Award, we Rule 21(a) is an ov>rtime and call rule, which addresses the method of payment for time worked preceding or following and continuous with a revlarly assigned eight hour work period. Under the facts of this case, it is also inapplicable. Carrier had the right to refuse Claimants work when they reported late on May 29., 1979 and it was not discipline. The section gang had been warned on previous occasions to improve its attendance. Award 22904 is dispositive. We will deny the claim.
