Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 32126
Docket No. MW-31821
97-3-94-3-116

The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Edwin H. Bean when award was rendered.

(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Burlington Northern Railroad (former St. Louis
( San Francisco Raflway Company)

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:





FINDINGS:

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

The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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.
Form 1 Award No. 32126
Page 2 Docket No. iMW-31821




After completion of their regularly assigned work on October 9, 1991, members of Rail Gang No. 1 were called out of their outfit cars and were addressed by Carrier Special Agent J. R Stanley concerning the Carrier's policy about women in the outfit cars and on the Carrier's property. At the time, some members of the gang were showering, sleeping or eating. This claim seeks compensation for the employees for attendance at that discussion.


Rule 74 states in pertinent part that "employees notified or called to perform work not continuous with the regular work period will be allowed a minimum of two hours and forty minutes, at time and one-half rate ...." The question, then, is whether attendance at this type of discussion was "work."


Included in the record before this Board is a letter signed by 20 member of Rail Gang 1 which states:








We agree with the Organization that employees are not expected to volunteer their services. However, the analogy here is to the often litigated issue concerning whether employees are to be compensated for attendance at rules classes. An important factor in resolving these kinds of disputes focuses upon whether attendance at a specific class or meeting is mandatory. We simply cannot discern from the record before us whether attendance at this discussion by Special Agent Stanley was mandatory. While, given the nature of the meeting, we can certainly speculate, in the end that is not our

Form 1 Award No. 32126
Page 3 Docket No. MW-31821
97-3-94-3-116

function. Rather, to meet its burden, it is the Organization's function in a rules case to demonstrate all the elements of its claim. Here, that was not done. The Organization has not demonstrated that attendance at this particular discussion was mandatory. The Organization's burden has not been met. The claim will be denied.


                            Bp


      Claim denied.


                        ORDER


This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.


                      NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                      By Order of Third Division


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of August 1997.