The Claimant is assigned to the Signal Department and works 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 his attendance at a required Rules training class outside of his 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 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 Awards 40599 and 40600 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 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 submission of the record to the Board does not contain this error, i.e., only the Organization's record does. Based upon the multitude of similar claims being filed by the Organization at the same time, involving the parties' identical arguments, any confusion related to record-keeping made by the Organization (and/or the Carrier) is understandable, was inadvertent, and did not mislead the Organization in any manner as to the Carrier's position in this matter. A perusal of the record in Third Division Award 40601 where this argument was also made, shows that the two August 14, 2007 denials were apparently switched and placed in the wrong case file.
A careful review of the record convinces the Board that this claim (like the ones in Third Division Awards 40600 and 40601 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 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 Claimant was Form 1 Award No. 40602
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 work hours not in excess of 40 that week, 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.
