On January 29, 2000 the Claimants worked on their rest day to practice driving in preparation for their CDL test, claiming to have been authorized by an unidentified management official. Once they completed their practice, they submitted time sheets showing their work, in order to be paid pursuant to the CSXT Labor Agreement No. 15-045-94 which provides, in relevant part, that the ". . . Carrier will . . . reimburse employees for time . . . required to obtain . . . a CDL." However, the Carrier refused to pay them and the instant dispute arose.
The Carrier first argues that no Signal Department employee has ever been paid at any rate solely for practicing driving on a rest day. However, a review of the record shows that this argument was not made during the handling of the dispute on the property and is not properly before us. The Carrier next argues that no management official ever sanctioned the work and that there is no evidence in the record to show that the Claimants actually worked as claimed. We believe that the instant dispute raises a unique set of facts and circumstances such that the claims must be sustained, but without precedential value. First, it strains credulity to think that the Claimants would have worked at all if they had not been authorized to do so. Second, the time sheets submitted by the Claimants indicate that the work in question was actually performed. In our view therefore, we conclude that the Claimants asked to practice on their rest day and that they were authorized to do so and led to believe they would be paid for the time in question.
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.