Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

THIRD DIVISION

Award No. 43154 Docket No. SG-43457 18-3-NRAB-00003-160071

The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Peter R. Meyers when award was rendered.

(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (

(Union Pacific Railroad Company

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

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

Claim on behalf of C.F. Antonio, L.B. Burns, and J. Ware, for 16 hours at their respective time and one-half rate and 2 hours at the respective double-time rate, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rules 10 and 65, when, on July 7-8, 2014, it instructed the Claimants to stay in the hotel in order to be fully rested for the night shift and then refused to compensate them for this time. Carrier's File No. 1612714. General Chairman's File No. UPGCW-100196. BRS File Case No. 15284-UP."

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.

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

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

The Organization filed the instant claim on the Claimants' behalf, alleging that the Carrier violated the parties' Agreement when it refused to compensate them for the time that they spent resting at a hotel on July 7-8, 2014, in compliance with instructions from the Carrier. The Carrier denied the claim.

The Organization contends that the instant claim should be sustained in its entirety because the Carrier directed the Claimants to report for duty two days early to attend a cutover meeting, because the Carrier then improperly instructed the Claimants to stay in Carrier's lodging facility "on standby" to be rested for service the following day outside of their normal work schedule, because the Carrier improperly failed to compensate the Claimants for this time that they spent on standby service, and because there is no support for the Carrier's position that the Claimants were not under its control while resting at the lodging facility.

The Carrier contends that the instant claim should be denied in its entirety because the Claimants were not placed on standby status and were not completely under the control of the Carrier, because an irreconcilable fact dispute exists, because the Organization has failed to meet its burden of proof, and because the requested remedy is excessive and unwarranted.

The parties being unable to resolve their dispute, this matter came before the Board.

The Board has reviewed the record in this case, and we find that the Organization has met its burden of proof that the Carrier violated the parties' Agreement when it instructed the Claimants to stay at a hotel in order to be fully rested for the night shift and then refused to compensate them for their time, which was clearly stand-by time. Therefore, this claim must be sustained.

The record reveals that the Carrier directed the Claimants to report for duty two days early on their rest days to attend a cutover meeting. The Carrier then instructed the Claimants to stay in the Carrier's lodging facility the rest of the day from 7 A.M. to 5 P.M. on July 7, 2014. Although the Carrier denies that that was a "stand-by" basis, the Claimants were there and were instructed to rest during their normal working hours and believed that they were not able to leave or go perform any other personal tasks. The Carrier's witness stated that he did not tell them that they would be on stand-by but stated, rather, "be rested and ready to work at 5 P.M., Monday, July 7, 2014," which was their rest day and outside of their normal working hours.

The Board finds that by virtue of making those requirements of the Claimants and not paying them for their time, the Carrier violated Rules 10 and 65. Therefore, this claim must be sustained.

AWARD

Claim sustained.

ORDER

This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Third Division

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of May 2018.