The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Lisa Salkovitz Kohn when award was rendered.
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. 39514
At the time this dispute arose, the Claimants were assigned to signal positions on Zone Gang 6431 (Zone 3) working a schedule of eight days on/six days off, Tuesday through Tuesday. The Carrier instructed the Claimants to report to work on May 2, 2004, two days before the May 4 start of their regular work cycle. This required that they travel on May 1, 2004, one of their guaranteed four days off between work periods. The Organization alleges that the Carrier thereby required the Claimants to perform service by traveling to the job site on one of their rest days, failed to give the Claimants four consecutive days off as outlined in Rule 36, and failed to properly compensate them for this time. The Organization asserts that each Claimant should be compensated six hours at time and one-half for their travel on May 1 and contends that Rule 5J(i) supports this claim. The Carrier asserts that the Claimants were not entitled to any compensation other than the travel allowance that they have been paid.
According to the Organization, the intent of the Rule was that the Claimants would have six days off, guaranteeing four consecutive days at home, and if they do not receive their guaranteed days at home, they are to be compensated as described in Form 1 Award No. 39514
the first "Note" of Rule 36. However, that "Note" merely states that when the Carrier must work a zone gang on an eight on/six off schedule for 14 days straight, they will have the first four days of the workweek off and paid at straight time, per the work schedule, and then complete the cycle by working four days and then having their six days off. This insures employees in the situation described the four consecutive rest days off between two work periods; it does not specify that those four days will be spent at home. The "Note" merely illustrates that when a zone gang is not granted the minimum four consecutive rest days off between work periods, they will be granted the appropriate time off with straight time pay at the beginning of the next work period. As the Second Division explained in its Award 157:
Nothing in the language of the "Note," or any other part of Rule 36, entitles employees to receive guaranteed rest days at home, and the Organization cited no authority for this interpretation of the parties' Agreement.
The record shows that the Carrier gave the Claimants proper notice to report early, gave them four consecutive rest days off between work periods, and paid them the travel allowance required under Rule 36. Rule 36 entitles the Claimants to the travel allowance; it does not entitle the Claimants to compensation for travel time, not even for travel time on a day off. The Organization failed to prove that the Claimants performed any service by traveling on their May 1, 2004, rest day, so there is no basis to conclude that they were entitled to any additional compensation claimed.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.