Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 40834
Docket No. SG-40751
11-3-NRAB-00003-090006

The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Lisa Salkovitz Kohn when award was rendered.

(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad ( Corporation (Metra)

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:



FINDINGS:

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.
Form 1 Page 2

Award No. 40834
Docket No. SG-40751
11-3-NRAB-00003-090006

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.




The Claimant was assigned to the position of Oak Lawn Signal Maintainer with regularly scheduled work days of Monday through Friday and regularly scheduled hours of 6:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. This was a monthly rated position. The Claimant's assigned territory encompassed 87th Street and Pulaski Road. On November 18, 2005, a Friday, the second shift Oak Lawn Signal Maintainer did not report to work, using a personal leave day. At approximately 5:00 P.M., the Carrier was advised of a broken gate on the Oak Lawn Signal Maintainer's territory. To repair the gate, the Carrier first sent Signal Maintainer Boatwright, a second shift Signal Maintainer assigned to a territory adjoining the Oak Lawn territory. Boatwright called for assistance to complete the work. The Carrier called the Claimant to assist Boatwright.


The Claimant worked two hours and 40 minutes, but
payment of a "call" for performing this work.

The Organization contends that the Carrier violated Rules 15 and 17 by working the Claimant outside of his regularly assigned hours without paying him for his work on the call. Rule 17 states, in relevant part:



The Organization asserts that this provision entitles the Claimant to be paid for the November 18, 2005, call.


not receive the additional

However, the Carrier asserts that there was no violation, because Rule 51 does not require that the Claimant receive additional payment for emergency service performed outside of his scheduled work hours during his regular workweek, when that emergency service is performed within the limits of his regular territory. Rule 51

Form 1 Award No. 40834
Page 3 Docket No. SG-40751


governs pay to monthly-rated Signal Maintainers. With respect to overtime, the Rule states, in relevant part:





Form 1 Page 4

Award No. 40834
Docket No. SG-40751
11-3-NRAB-00003-090006

The Board finds that the work that the Claimant was called to perform (to assist another Signal Maintainer originally assigned to repair a broken gate arm discovered after the Claimant's regular work hours) was emergency service, rather than regular maintenance. Therefore, the Carrier was not barred by the second quoted paragraph above from requiring the Claimant to perform the work outside of his bulletined assigned hours. However, because the work was performed on the


Claimant's territory on his regularly scheduled work

additional compensation under Rule 51.

The Organization's reliance on Rule 15 and Rule 17 in this case is misplaced.
Although Rule 15 states that overtime hours "shall be compensated on the actual
minute basis and paid for at one and one-half times the basic straight time rate," Rule
51 specifically states that for monthly rated employees, such as the Claimant, "No
overtime is allowed for time worked in excess of eight (8) hours per day on the
regularly assigned five (5) days per week the employee is scheduled to work, nor on the
first scheduled rest day (6th day) of the work week or holidays." The specific
provisions of Rule 51 override this genera l overtime provision of Rule 15 in
determining compensation for monthly rated Signal Maintainers. Rule 51 expressly
requires compensation based on Rule 15 and Rule 17 for monthly rated employees
only 1) for work performed on the employee's assigned rest day, or 2) for regular
construction and maintenance work performed on the employee's sixth day, or 3) for
work performed outside the limits of the employee's territory outside of the assigned
hours of their workweek. Rule 51 does not require additional compensation under
Rule 15 and Rule 17 where the work was emergency work performed within the limits
of the employee's territory on one of the employee's regularly assigned five work days
and the Organization identified no other provision that does so. Accordingly, the
claim is denied.

he was not entitled to

AWARD

Claim denied.
Form 1 Award No. 40834
Page 5 Docket No. SG-40751
11-3-NRAB-00003-090006



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


                      By Order of Third Division


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 11th day of January 2011.