Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29027
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-28689
91-3-89-3-37
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee George S. Roukis when award was rendered.

(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Western Lines)

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim on behalf of the General Committee 9f the Brother
hood of Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Pacific
Transportation Company (SPTC (WL)):

On behalf of Signal Maintainer G. J. Wees for two hours and forty minutes pay at his punitive rate of pay, account of the Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as. amended, particularly Rule 18, when it called him to perform work at 11:30 PM on January 1, 1988." Carrier file SIG-21-2.

FINDINGS:

The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.



The basic facts of this case are set forth as follows: On January 1, 1988, at 11:30 P.M., Carrier called Claimant at his home for the purpose of correcting signal trouble between Swain and Alford, Oregon. Claimant accepted the call and then proceeded to get dressed and ready to leave, when he was notified about 11:35 P.M. that the trouble cleared up by itself and the call was canceled. On January 20, 1988, a claim was filed by the Organization, wherein it was charged that Carrier violated Rule 18 - Calls, when Claimant was called to work. The Organization cited Third Division Award 18585 as controlling precedent authority.
Form 1 Award No. 29027
Page 2 Docket No. SC-28689
91-3-89-3-37

In rebuttal, Carrier contends that merely answering a telephone call does not constitute work as that term is used in Rule 18 and further defined by Third Division Awards 23078, 22254, 21728, 21652, 21561, 21295, 6107 and Award 25 of Public Law Board No. 3402. Rule 18 is referenced as follows:







In considering this case within the context of the Awards cited by the parties, the Board concludes that the facts in Third Division Award 18585 are foursquarely on point with the facts herein. In effect, Claimant did not answer a question or respond to an erroneous Carrier call, as were the fact patterns in the cases cited by Carrier, but instead he accepted the call to report to work and was preparing himself to report when the call was canceled. Since these are distinguishable facts and since there has been no showing that Third Division Award 18585 was later found erroneous by successor Awards or. questioned as to logical interpretative consistency by the Awards referenced by Carrier, the Board of necessity must find for the Organization.




Form 1 Award No. 29027
Page 3 Docket No. SG-28689
91-3-89-3-37
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division


Attest:


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of October 1991.