Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 45272 Docket No. SG-47415
24-3-NRAB-00003-220473
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Kathryn A. VanDagens 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:
Continuous claim on behalf of D. Schiller, for compensation of 2 hours at the Maintainer straight-time rate of pay for days worked on his normally assigned work days, 10 hours at the Maintainer straight-time rate of pay when required to rest on his regular assigned work days, his half time rate of pay for all hours worked on his regularly assigned rest days, beginning on June, 1, 2021, continuing until the Claimant is returned to his bulletined position, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen’s Agreement, particularly Rules 5, 14, and 15, when Carrier assigned the Claimant to a temporary position and failed to compensate him properly. Carrier’s File No. 1760850, General Chairman’s File No. VGCS-5-14-196, BRS File Case No. 5422, NMB Code No. 300 - Contract Rules: Assignments/Bulletins.”
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 Claimant was assigned to Signal Gang 1458, as a Skilled Signalman headquartered in Cotula, Texas. In this position, the Claimant’s assignment was an 8-day position, Tuesday to Tuesday with six consecutive rest days, to Monday to Friday, with Saturday and Sunday as rest days. Beginning on June 1, 2021, the Carrier required the Claimant to temporarily fill a Maintainer position on Gang 8647. The Maintainer position was a higher rated position than the Claimant’s regular Signalman position.
In a letter dated July 24, 2021, the Organization filed a claim on behalf of the Claimant. The Carrier denied the claim in a letter dated September 7, 2021. Following discussion of this dispute in conference, the positions of the parties remained unchanged, and this dispute is now properly before the Board for final adjudication.
The Organization contends that the Carrier violated the controlling Agreement when it utilized the Claimant to fill a position on Gang 8647 and did not compensate him in accordance with the current Agreement provisions, in particular Rules 13 and 14. The Organization contends that the Claimant lost two hours at his respective straight-time rate of pay each day he worked on the temporary assignment, 10 hours at his respective straight-time rate of pay for each regular assigned work day he was denied the work opportunities, and his half-time rate of pay for all hours worked on his scheduled rest days beginning on June 1, 2021.
The Organization contends that due to the Carrier’s forcing the Claimant to leave his regular assignment to work a temporary vacancy from June 1, 2021 and continuing, the Claimant was not afforded his 40-hour work week. The Organization contends that the Claimant’s seniority entitles him to the job that he holds by bulletin. The Claimant did not exercise his seniority to the temporary vacancy but was forced by the Carrier.
The Organization contends that the Carrier’s continued violation of the Agreement required the Claimant to miss regular assigned workdays from his assigned position and he is entitled to ten hours of straight time for each forced rest day. The Organization contends that because the Claimant was forced to work on his regularly assigned rest days, he is owed the additional half-time in accordance with Rule 15.
The Carrier contends that the Organization has failed to show a violation of
the Agreement or that the Claimant is entitled to any additional compensation. The Carrier acknowledges that it transitioned the Claimant from his signalman’s position at $33.68/hour to the maintainer position at $37.14/hour but contends that it properly compensated him for all hours worked, including overtime.
The Carrier contends that the Claimant earned more on the temporary vacancy than he would have earned on his regular position. The Carrier contends the provisions cited by the Organization were not intended to create a windfall for employees filling temporary vacancies, but to ensure that those employees were not shorted compensation. The Carrier contends that the Claimant was compensated correctly for all hours worked and was not shorted his 40-hour workweek.
The parties agree that the Carrier has the right and authority to temporarily assign the Claimant to work as a Signal Maintainer rather than as a Signalman. However, the Organization asserts that while the Carrier has the right to temporarily reassign employees, there is a negotiated cost associated with that right.
Rule 14 – FILLING TEMPORARY VACANCY – of the controlling agreement provides,
A. An employee, when sent away from his home station to fill a temporary vacancy for one day, will be paid in accordance with Rule 13A; if for more than one day, he will be paid in accordance with Rule 13B. While filling such vacancy, he will be paid for the hours worked at the established rate for the position, but at not less than his regular rate. If his regular position works in excess of eight (8) hours, he will be paid not less than if he remained on his regular position.
The Organization asserts that because the Claimant was regularly assigned to work a ten-hour day, he must be compensated for the additional two hours each workday while temporarily assigned to an eight-hour position. But the clear and unambiguous language of Rule 14 A provides only that he be paid at not less than his regular rate and not less than if he remained on his regular position. The Claimant was compensated at the higher maintainer’s rate and his total compensation was not less than if he had remained in his regular position. The Carrier did not violate this provision.
The Organization also contends that because the Claimant was forced to work
on his previously-assigned rest days, he was entitled to compensation under Rule 15 - SERVICE PERFORMED ON REST DAYS OR HOLIDAYS,
A. Work performed on assigned rest days and the following holidays shall be paid for at the rate of time and one-half on a minute basis with a minimum of three (3) hours…
The Carrier responds that the Claimant did not perform work on the rest days associated with his new assignment, and thus is not entitled to any additional compensation. The Carrier’s point is well-taken. The Organization has not offered any evidence showing that the Claimant performed work on the assigned rest days of the Signal Maintainer position. Therefore, he was not entitled to additional compensation under this provision.
As the moving party, the Organization bears the burden of showing a violation of the Agreement, but it has not presented sufficient evidence of a violation. The Claimant was properly compensated while in the temporary assignment.
Claim denied.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of July 2024.