1. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when, on various dates commencing ^,arch 7, L9,^.3, it required employes to report to work for a period of less than eight hours and failed to compensate them for a full eight hour (lay.
2. Carrier sha11, as a result, compensate Zlessrs. W. Allen, R. C. Chaffee and M. M. ,'laynard of Newport Yard Office, a full eight hours pay for each and every day in which they were required to work a period of less than eight consecutive hours.
called to work on various dates to supplement the regular work force. They were assigned for less than eight hours a (lay and were paid only for the tours actually worked.
The Organization claims ti,,at the employees should have received eight hours' pay for each of the partial ,lays worked, under the provision of Rule 2, HOURS OF WORK, Section (a), which reads as follows:
The Orvanizattnn argues that this is a "hasic ,lay" rule, requiring the pavment of eight hours' pav whenever an ~·mrloype is called to work. The "exceptions" referred to in Rule 2 (a) ;,ave no anplicatton to a regular work day, according to the Organization.
The Carrier ary~ue, that Rule 2 (a) may not he read as a guaranrce of any number of pay hours !)ut ratt.er ;irrilv prescrih.ec the maximum Length of a normal work day.
Vic Carrier also points to Article ? (j) of the l:ork Week Rule which reads: "Guarantees -- Nothing in this rile shall he construed to create a guarantee n` any number of hours or days of work where none now exists".
In addition, the Carrier suggests that, since the employees were called to work on an as-and-when needed basis, they can he distinguished from regularly assigned employees and pail! on an hour-by-hour basis. Award Number 255n4
As to the last point, the boar! finds nothing in Rule 2 (a) or in anv othcr cited rules which would separate employes called for such assignments from those scheduled on ,a regular basis. As to Rule 3 (), this must be real to mean that nothing in the Uork l4ek Rule (Pule 3) itsflf creates .a guarantee. Hare, hoc,ever, the question is whether _another rule -- Rule 2 (a) -- creates such guarantee.
As to Pule 2 (a), the Carrier is quite correct that it differs from similar rules in other agreements which read, for example: "Fight consecutive hours, exclusive of meal period, shall constitute a dav's work for which eig'5t
hours' pay shall he allowed." Nevertheless, Rule 2 (a) interpreted to require the pavment of eight hours' pay even when actually worked.
Previous awards of .thic Division have considered the reaching a conclusion that the wording of Rule 2 (a) doE
interpretation set forth by the Organization. Award `lo. 2589 reads part as follows:
"OPIt:7l7N Of RoARD: The facts in this case are not in dispute. There ;ire some eight platform employes at the San Luis Ohispo Freight Station who aYe required to report daily W definitely assif·ned darting times. They ate paid "n an hourly basis for actual time worked. The claim is for eir·ht hours hav for ail employes so assigred. 'rho claim 's based on Pule 9, which provides:
Fxcept as otbnrwise provided to rhic article, eight (R) consecutive hours' work, exclusive of the mc>n! period, shall constitute a day's work.
The Carrier contends that the rnlvc ,'ocs not ymrartr>e a minimum of eight hours work. Tnc~ contention is untenable in the face of menu d.·cisions of Chic Board holding that rules, identical in terms, <,uarantee a minimum of cikht hours work to employes who are required to report daily at definitely assigned hours
to perform work which arises in the usual course of each day's business. See Awarns '.os. 330, 43F;, 5(h, 11167, 1127, I'?ll, 1801. In the Award last cited there is a comprehensive discussion <·i previous awards, holding that such rules as Pule ') guarantee a minimum of eight hours work, and the reasons lustifyiny; such interpretation of the rule. The interpretation of the rule as laic! down in these awards has, we think, effectively hecome a part of it in all agreements, between the Brotherhood and the carriers, in which it appears.
has Long been 'ewer hours .,re
same Lan,?nare , .s lead to tie