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

Claim on behalf of C. S. Johnson, for 1$ hours at his time and onehalf rate of pay, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rules 5, 7, $, 13 and 15, when it required the Claimant to perform service outside his regular assigned hours on February 20 and 21, 2007 then failed to compensate him as required by the Agreement. Carrier's File No. 1472770. General Chairman's File No. N 15 675. BRS File Case No. 13974-UP."

FINDINGS:

The Claimant is a Signal Maintainer with an assigned 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 his attendance at a required Rules training class outside of his assigned work hours on February 20 and 21, 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 training classes given by the Carrier's Safety Supervisors as part of the annual start-up that was dealt with by the Board in Third Division Award 40599 as well as identical arguments of the Organization and the Carrier set forth therein. They are incorporated by reference in this Award.

Initially, we are unable to accept the Organization's procedural assertion that the Carrier's inadvertent reference to a different Claimant's name in its August 14, 2007 denial constitutes a fatal error requiring that the claim be sustained. The Carrier's initial denial properly identified the Claimant. Moreover, the multitude of similar claims being filed by the Organization at the same time, involving the parties' identical arguments, made confusion understandable and did not mislead the Organization in any manner as to its position in this matter.

A careful review of the record convinces the Board that this claim is governed by the holding and rationale of 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. 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 him to attend his 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 his attendance at the training classes, as well as for the work he performed on the claim dates, with total hours not in excess of 40 that week, the claim for additional compensation must be denied.

AWARD