The material facts that led to this claim are not in dispute. In January and February 2001, the Claimants were assigned to a Signal Gang(s) with a fixed headquarters. Their regular workweek was Monday through Friday. Saturday and Sunday were their regular rest days. They were working away from their headquarters in January and February 2001.
On Saturday, January 27 and Saturday, February 3, 2001, the Claimants worked away from their headquarters. They were paid overtime for this service on their rest days. After completing work on January 27 and February 3, 2001, the Claimants returned to their headquarters for their Sunday rest day.
On February 26, a claim was filed on behalf of the Claimants for eight hours at their time and one-half rate of pay for Saturday, January 27 and Saturday, February 3, 2001. It was the Organization's position that because the Claimants were held away from their headquarters for their Saturday rest day, they were entitled to eight hours of pay at the time and one-half rate in accordance with Appendix 9-B of the Agreement.
The Carrier denied the claim contending that Appendix 9-B, Paragraph 2 (also Appendix 0, Paragraph 2) was inapplicable because the Claimants returned to their headquarters on their first rest day (Saturday) giving them their second rest day (Sunday) off.
The Carrier argues that the minimum allowance provided by Appendix 9-B, Paragraph 2, only applies when employees assigned to Signal Gangs with fixed headquarters are held away from their headquarters for the two day rest period. Because the Claimants were not held away from their headquarters for their two rest days, the Carrier contends that Appendix 9-B, Paragraph 2 was inapposite to them.
The Board respectfully disagrees with the Carrier's application of Appendix 9-B, Paragraph 2. In our view, this contractual provision was intended to allow employees assigned to Signal Gangs with fixed headquarters compensation for being held away from their headquarters on anv of their rest days or holidays. Inasmuch as the Claimants were held away from their headquarters on Saturday, January 27 and again on Saturday, February 3, 2001, which were their rest days, they were entitled to the allowance provided by Appendix 9-B, Paragraph 2. It is noteworthy that the Claimants were not returned to their headquarters until after they completed work on their Saturday rest days. Therefore, they had the benefit of only one rest day (Sunday) on both of these weekends.
The Carrier further argues that the allowance provided by Appendix 9-B, Paragraph 2, is not a penalty payment, but rather a guarantee of eight hours' pay at the time and one-half rate for employees who are held away from their headquarters on holidays or their rest days. Because the Claimants received eight hours' pay at the time and one-half rate for both Saturdays that they were held away from their headquarters, they are not entitled to any additional compensation, according to the Carrier.
Again, the Board must respectfully disagree with the Carrier's application of Appendix 9-B. In our view, the allowance provided by Appendix 9-B, Paragraph 2, was intended to compensate employees for being held away from their headquarters Form 1 Award No. 37630
on holidays or their rest days regardless of whether it is considered a "guarantee" or a " enal ." This allowance is entirely separate from any compensation employees earn for working on their rest days. The Board concurs with the findings of Public Law Board No. 4716, Award 119, that the Carrier must meet both contractual obligations.
Inasmuch as the Claimants were not returned to their headquarters until after completing a day's work on their rest days, they are entitled to eight hours of compensation at the time and one-half rate for Saturday, January 27 and Saturday, February 3, 2001. The claim is sustained as a result.
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.
THIRD DIVISION AWARD 37630, DOCKET SG-37272
(REFEREE O'BRIEN)
Awards of the Board have consistently held that where the Agreement language is not ambiguous it must be applied as written. In this case the language of the Agreement was specific but nevertheless misinterpreted.
As stated by the Majority, the facts of the case were not disputed. A Signal Gang (which had two rest days) was returned to their headquarters location on a Saturday (the first rest day). They were compensated at the overtime rate for that rest day. The employees observed Sunday as their normally scheduled rest day.
Because they were not returned to their headquarters location on Friday evening, the Organization argued that the Carrier was in violation of Paragraph 2 of Appendix 9-B (also Appendix O) of the Agreement. This Rule specifically states:
The language is written in the plural sense and it clearly states that to receive this additional eight hours of time and one-half pay the employees would have to have been held away from their headquarters for both of their rest days. When the Majority awarded this additional payment to the employees who were only held for one of their rest days, it erred. Consistently, since inception of the Rule in 1975, the Carrier has accorded the Paragraph 2 payment only when both rest days were involved. Contrary to the language of the Award, there has been a "windfall" or "penalty" awarded.
One of the justifications for awarding this payment by the Majority was its additional reliance on the language of Award 119 of Public Law Board No. 4716. However, a reading of that Award reveals a different fact pattern than the one in this case. In Award 119, the Board resolved a dispute that encompassed employees being held away from their headquarters for both rest days. In discussing the contractual obligations of the Carrier, the PLB wrote in the terms or "rest days" and not "rest day." Reliance on Award 119 should not have been made in this case. CARRIER MEMBERS' DISSENT