NATIONAL RAILROAD AwoSMONr BOARD

Award lftmmber 24373

THIRD DIVISION Docket Number W-21276

Joseph A. Sickles, Referee

Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPVIT:

?The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Ooh

STATFENT Cp' CLAI14: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier failed and red to compensate the claimants far standby service rendered by each on February 11, 12, 13 and 14, 1980 (System File 10-P-422-4/11-1800-60-1).

(2) Each of the claimants listed below nor be compensated continuously from 7:00 a.m. February 11, 1980 until 3:30 Pon. February 14, 1980.

J. R. Andrews, Forman Nelson Bynum, Forema

B. J. Callaway John Wicke

J. To Callaway J9 Do DolQsi

L. 8. Andrews Le Ce Boland

Jo Do Aleshire E. We X014

B. L. Tolar J. 0. Kelley

0. B. Cbathsa A. X. Rodriequex

A. J. Peres, Jr.*

OPINION OF BOARD: According to the Employes., they were members of a gang
which reported to an emergency job on February 11, 1980 mad worked there until February 14. Further, they assert that they were notified by the Foreman after each day of assigmmsat that they "were to rain available and on duty each evening and nito.o." in the event mer. gency required their, attention. Nonetheless they were not compensated for time spent at the motel as they waited for possible call..

In the initial denial the Carrier concedes that the Employes were required to remain on February 11 but they were reimbursed for nmle and rooms. On February 12, two (2) individuals were permitted to make a trip to obtain clothes and medicine for all of the Employes.

The Carrier asserts that some of the Claimants did not perform work in the area and thus should be excluded from consideration and further it indicates that certain of the Employes bad their own vehicles and journeyed home each day so that they should be properly excluded as Claimants. Notwithstanding, the Carrier de for service and denies that they were advised or instructed what to do on their free time. The Carrier argues that even if the Employes were instructed to remain at the hotel. and Award Number 24373
Docket Number MW-24276

Page 2

The Board is of the view that if a Carrier requires individuals to remain at a designated places those individuals are entitled to compensation absent some rule or
ieweverj, as we review the entire record. we feel that the 11th of February is the only night that we can infer an instruction to same Employes that they remain available and not leave the motel. Accordingly we x111 sustain the claim only to the extent of compensating the Employee far February 11 and only the Employes who were at the motel on that night.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Boards upon the whole record and all the evidences finds and holds:

That the parties waived oral hearing;

That the Carrier and. the Employer involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the manning of the Railway Iabor Acts as approved June 21s 19343

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

That the Agreement was violated.

A W A R D

Claim sustained in accordance with the Opinion.

NATIONAL RAILROAD AluUSTMSLPT HOARD
By Order of Third Division

ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

Dated at Chicago, n 11nsis, this 13th day of May 1983.