Claim was filed by the Organization on behalf of the members of Signal Gang No. 005, Roseville, California, and Signal Gang No. 29, Colfax, California, on August 1, 1994, asserting that Carrier improperly changed the Claimants' work week from four 10 hour days to five 8 hour days beginning with the week of June 20-24, 1994. Claimants had been working a work week of four 10 hour days for approximately four years prior to the change.
Rule 5, 40 Hour Work Week, provides in paragraph (k) (1), captioned Accumulation of Rest Days, in pertinent part:
It is the Organization's position that Carrier's arbitrary change of the work week violated the provisions of Rule 5 (k) (1) in that it failed to show that the change was required to meet its service requirements.
Carrier defends against the claim on three fronts. First, it takes the position that the "Spirit of Intent" of Rule 5 (k) (1) was to provide signal gangs working away from home the opportunity to work four 10 hour days and thus have three days home with the family each week. Further, that neither Gang No. 005 nor No. 29 have been denied the privilege of working four 10 hour days while away from home. Neither gang has worked away from home since the change to a five day work week.
The record reveals that the Organization did not dispute that the intent of Rule 5 (k) (1) was to afford signal gangs working away from home the opportunity to work four 10 hour days so as to have three days off to spend with the family. Further, the Organization does not dispute that the two gangs have not been required to work away from home since changing to a five day work week.
The Organization argues that "almost all of the signal gangs on the system are on four 10 hour days, headquarters point included," but it does not deny that Rule 5 (k) (1) was not intended to apply to any and all gangs by simple election of the members of a gang.
We find no denial by the Organization of Carrier's statement that budget restraints resulting in a reduction of force made it necessary to rearrange its forces. This fact in itself leads the Board to conclude that service requirements was the underlying factor for changing the work week from four 10 hour days to five 8 hour days.
This Board further concludes that the intent of the parties in negotiating Rule 5 (k) (1) was to provide employees working on line of road away from home an opportunity to have three days each week to take care of family business and be with their family. In the instant case, the members of Signal Gang Nos. 005 and 29 are no longer required to work on the line of road away from their home point. This being so, Rule 5 (k) (1) has no application to them.
Upon review of the awards submitted by the Organization as lending support to its position herein, the Board concludes that they lend no comfort as they are founded on facts and agreement rules unlike what is involved in this case.
For the reasons discussed herein, the Board is persuaded that Rule 5 (k) (1) was not violated. The claim will be denied.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimaat(s) not be made.