Form 1
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 33832
Docket No. CL-33183
99-3-96-3-628
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Edwin H. Benn when award was rendered.
(Transportation Communications International Union
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(CSX Transportation, Inc. (former Chesapeake and Ohio
( Railway Company)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim of the System Committee of the Organization (GL-11376) that:
Claim No. 1
(TCU file: HV-1445, Carrier's file: 95 0186)
(A) The Carrier violated the terms of the General Agreement and
Memorandum thereto when, on January 2, 3, 4, 8,10,11,12,15,16,
17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, and 31, 1994, and February i
and 2, 1994, they failed and/or refused to compensate Clerk W.
King the instructor's rate of $11.03, in accordance with Rule No.
10; and,
(B) The Carrier shall now be required to repay Clerk W. King
instructor's pay on the aforementioned dates, total payment $242.66
the amount reclaimed by the Carrier, with interest. These movies
shall be on a separate check, and exempt from all deductions,
because taxes and railroad retirement have been paid twice on this
money.
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 33832
Docket No. CL-33183
99-3-96-3-628
Claim No. 2
(TCU file: CAN-196, Carrier's file: 95 0157)
(A) The Carrier violated the terms of the General Agreement and
Memorandum thereto, when on the following date: November 2,
1994, Mr. P. J. Henderson, ID #607493 was allowed instructor's
rate of $11.47 on the above date (plus other monies entitled to) and
then on or about December 15, 1994, the instructor's rate was
arbitrarily taken back; and,
(B) The Carrier shall now arrange to allow Clerk P. J. Henderson, ID
#607493, instructor's rate on the aforementioned date.
Claim No. 3
(TCU file: 85-1246, Carrier's file: 95 0323)
(A) The Carrier violated the terms of the Clerks' General Agreement,
particularly Rule 10, when on February 24, 1995, the Carrier
arbitrarily and unilaterally deducted $11.03, designated as
"qualify", from Claimant Lou C. Vaughan's pay check covering pay
period ending February 10,1995, for trainer service rendered (over
a year ago) on Friday, February 4, 1994; and,
(B) The Carrier shall promptly restore the $11.03 improperly,
arbitrarily and unilaterally deducted on February 24, 1995.
Claim No. 4
(TCU file: 666-2439, Carrier's file: 94 0502)
(A) The Carrier violated Rule 10, Paragraph 4 of the General
Agreement when it failed and refused to allow Claimant O. A.
Karnes the special training allowance on July 3, 5, 6 and 7, 1994;
and,
Form 1
Page 3
FINDINGS:
Award No. 33832
Docket No. CL-33183
99-3-96-3-628
(B) The Carrier shall now arrange to pay O. A. Karnes, ID 628059, the
amount of $44.12 the amount of training pay that was deducted
from his check."
The Third Division
of
the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the
evidence, finds that:
herein.
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
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
The claims contain the common dispute that the Carrier denied training
allowances because each Claimant was being compensated at the overtime rate. The
claims will be sustained.
First, Paragraph 13(a) of the Agreement effective August 10, 1981 provides:
"Employes selected by the Carrier to train or teach other employes shall
be given a training allowance computed in accordance with the provisions
of Rule 10(b)4 of this Clerks' General Agreement, for each day so assigned
which shall be in addition to other compensation due for that tour of duty."
The key language in that provision is that the training compensation is to be paid
"in addition to other compensation due for that tour
of
duty." Therefore, it is irrelevant
that the employee is paid overtime. Training pay is additional.
Second, the record contains a number of instances where, under the same
circumstances, the claimed type of compensation was paid. The Carrier did not refute
the existence of those payments.
Form 1
Page 4
Award No. 33832
Docket No. CL-33183
99-3-96-3-628
Third, Public Law Board No. 3540, Award 67 does not change the result. There,
the employee was called for overtime and was denied a training allowance. In denying
the claim, the Public Law Board found that the record did not show that the employee
was called on overtime to train an unqualified employee thus entitling the Claimant
therein to the training allowance. Rather, the Public Law Board found that the
employee was assigned to assist an employee on a regular position. That is not the fact
situation in these claims. Here, Claimants were instructing other employees during the
overtime calls. The interest requested in Claim No. 1 is denied.
AWARD
Claim sustained in accordance with the findings.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that
an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the
Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is
transmitted to the parties.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of December 1999.