Claimants hold seniority within their respective classes on the Tampa Division. At the time of this dispute, Claimants were headquartered at Waycross, Georgia, with an assigned workweek of Monday through Friday, eight hours per day.
On June 20, 1990, a derailment occurred near Waycross, Georgia. Claimants, already observing their assigned workday, continued work until the tracks were returned to service. Claimants were compensated for eight hours at the pro rata rate for service performed from their regular starting time of 7:30 A.M. until 4:30 P.M., eight hours at their respective time and one-half rates from 4:30 P.M. until 12:00 A.M. June 21, 1990, and received pay at their respective double time rates of pay thereafter.
Prior to their regular assigned starting time of 7:30 A.M. on June 21, 1990, Carrier notified Claimants that they were released from service for rest, and instructed them not to work their regular assigned hours on that day. Carrier Supervisors instructed Claimants, and their Foreman, to rest and return to work on June 23, 1990, at the normal time. Carrier compensated the Claimants for three hours at the pro rata rate beginning 7:30 A.M. on June 21, in accordance with Rule 19.
The Organization submitted this claim asserting that Claimants had been released from their regular shift "for the purpose of absorbing overtime, thereby losing their contractual entitlement to premium pay during their regularly assigned duties on Thursday, June 21, 1990." Carrier denied the claim maintaining that Claimants had worked 23 hours, and were "too exhausted" to safely continue work.
The Organization maintained that as a result of Carrier's actions, Claimants were "denied" their contractual rights, and "damaged monetarily."
The Organization made out a prima facie case by demonstrating that Claimants were required to stop work at the start of their regular assigned work period in circumstances under which, had they continued to work, they would have earned overtime pay. The burden thus shifted to Carrier to persuasively demonstrate that its action was motivated by a legitimate reason other than that which is curtailed by Rule 27, i.e. avoidance of overtime payments.
In the considered judgement of this Board, Carrier met that burden by showing that the employees had already worked some 13 consecutive hours. The Supervisor on the scene made an ostensibly reasonable managerial decision that Claimants should not be required to work a total of 32 hours without rest, and that decision is supported by plausible and persuasive record evidence. The manifest health and safety implications of working employees such long hours in close proximity to heavy machinery is enough to stay this Board from second-guessing and speculating on a mercenary ulterior motive for Carrier's decision. We find no violation of Rule 27 in the particular facts of this record.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.