"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Union Pacific Railroad:

Claim on behalf of J. D. Wyatt, for 18 hours at her time and one-half rate of pay, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rules 5, 7, 8, 13 and 15, when it required the Claimant to perform service outside her regular assigned hours on February 27 and 28, 2007 then failed to compensate her as required by the Agreement. Carrier's File No. 1472765. General Chairman's File No. N 15 670. BRS File Case No. 13966-UP."

respectively carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21,1934.

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

Award No. 40600

The Claimant is assigned to the Signal Department working a 2:30 P.M. to 10:30 P.M. shift. This claim protests the failure of the Carrier to compensate the Claimant at the time and one-half rate of pay for her attendance at a required Rules training class outside of her assigned work hours on February 27 and 28, 2007. The Organization relies on Rules 5 (40-Hour Work Week) 7 (Shifts) 8 (Change of Shift) 13 (Overtime) and 15 (Calls) of the Agreement in support of the Claimant's entitlement to the overtime pay rate. It involves the same type of training that was given by the Carrier's Safety Supervisors as part of the annual start-up dealt with by the Board in Third Division Award 40599, as well as identical arguments of the Organization and the Carrier set forth therein.

A careful review of the record convinces the Board that this claim is governed by the holding and rationale in Award 40599 as well as the principle of stare decisis confirming the application of the mutuality of benefit exception to the "work or service" Rule to classes on Operating or Safety Rules that occurred in this case. See Public Law Board No. 6459, Awards 12, 13, 26 and 35 and Third Division Awards 36628 and 39360. Thus, no violation of Rules 5, 13 or 15 has been established. Similarly, the finding that the Organization failed to sustain its burden of proving that the Claimant's shift times were changed in order for her to attend her training class, a prerequisite to a finding of entitlement to time and one-half pay under Rules 7 and 8, is equally applicable herein. Because the record makes clear that the Claimant was paid the straight time rate of pay for her attendance at the training classes, as well as for the work she performed on the claim dates, the claim for additional compensation must be denied

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