SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 605
PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
TO ) Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees
DISPUTE ) and _
St. Louis-San Francisco Railway
QUESTIONS
AT ISSUE: (1) Did the Carrier violate the provisions of the February 7,
1965 Agreement, particularly Article IV, Section 1 thereof,
when it refused and continues to refuse to consider one
hour overtime daily in the~normal rate of compensation
comprehended for the position of Chief Clerk in the
St. Louis General Office Mail Room?
(2) Shall the Carrier now be required to base the protected
daily rate of pay on the position of Chief Clerk in the
St. Louis General Office Mail Room occupied by Mr. F. J.
McEneny as comprehended to include the one hour overtime
daily based on the facts and circumstances as outlined
below?
OPINION The parties are in complete accord regarding the facts which pre
OF BOARD: cipitated the instant dispute. In 1945, a one hour daily overtime
was added to the Chief Clerk position. On March 1, 1959, the in
cumbent was assigned this position and continues to occupy such at
the present time. Furthermore, while on vacation each year, such
overtime was included in his compensation.
In issue is Article IV, Section 1, of the February 7, 1965 National
Agreement, hereinafter quoted:
"Subject to the provisions of Section 3 of this Article IV, protected
employees entitled to preservation of employment who hold regularly
assigned positions on October 1, 1964, shall not be placed in a worse
position with respect to compensation than the normal rate of compensation for said regularly assigned position on October 1, 1964; provided
however, that in addition thereto such compensation shall be adjusted
to include subsequent general wage increases."
. The thrust of the instant dispute is directed at the protected rate
to be accorded the incumbent. The Organization urges that the one hour daily
overtime should be included in the normal rate of compensation, whereas the
Carrier strenuously opposes such contention.
We recognize that the negotiators of the February 7, 1965 National
Agreement were experts in their field -- knowledgeable and sophisticated in the
terminology of the railroad industry. While we hesitate to introduce dictionary
definitions of words employed in collective bargaining agreements, we are compelled to establish a meaning for the word "normal." Such is generally defined
as "regular."
r
Award No. 46
Case No. CL-22-Y7
_ 2 _
In our view, where the overtime is a regular requirement of the
job -- expected and agreed to by the parties -- such becomes a part of the normal
rate of compensation which the employee receives. If overtime were not considered
a part of the normal rate of compensation, why would the Carrier have continued to
pay the additional amount during vacations?
We would also emphasize that this analysis is confined to the facts
indicated herein and not to a situation where overtime is scheduled on an irregular
basis. Furthermore, in our view, the practice is too well established in the instant situation to deny that the overtime is a~'regular portion of the normal rate
of compensation.
One further point should be noted. We recognize the right of the
Carrier to discontinue an overtime assignment, as presented to us in Award Number
16191, Third Division (Supplemental). However, that is not the issue before us.
Award
Answer to questions 1 and 2 is in the affirmative.
vvw- /
rray . Rohman
Neutr 1 Member
Dated: Washington, D. C.
April 18, 1969