SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUS1Mff:NT N0. 605
PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
TO ) Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees
DISPUTE ) and
Colorado and Southern Railway Company
QUESTIONS
AT ISSUE: 1. Did the Carrier violate the provisions of the February J,
1965 Agreement, particularly Article IV, Section 1, when
it failed to properly compensate Mr. R. H. tternan as pro
vided for by said Article and Section?
2. Shall the Carrier be required to compensate sir. R. H.
Kernan effective December 16, 1965, the wage losses he has
suffered on and after December 16, 1965, and accord him
the full allowances and benefits prescribed in the
February 7, 1965 Agreement?
OPINION
OF BOARD: The Claimant was assigned the position of Traveling Car Agent
on November, 1963, with a base rate of $536.54 plus $84.87
arbitrary monthly overtime allowance for 20 hours, equalling
$621.41 per month. On December 15, 1965, the position was
abolished, whereupon the Claimant elected to take a lower rated position
rather than exercise his seniority on the highest rated position available.
At this juncture, we should note that pursuant to Article IV,
Section 4, the Claimant shall " ....be treated for the purposes of this
Article as occupying the position which he elects to decline." -- the Chief
Clerk position.
In pressing the instant claim, the Organization urges that the
"overtime allowance was added as a means of increasing the salary on these positions in lieu of an increase of the basic rate over and above the standard
negotiated wage increases:" Furthermore, this allowance was paid whether the
employee holding such position worked overtime or not; and the prior incumbent
of this position, similarly, received the overtime allowance.
The Carrier, on the other hand, argues that the governing rate
for this position on October 1, 1964, was $553.61 per month based on 189
2/3 hours. That
"Overtime is not a factor in determining the normal rate of
compensation for said regularly assigned position on October
1, 1964 as set forth in Section 1, Article IV. The parties
to the February 7, 1965 Agreement have interpreted such
language to mean the rate of the position to which regularly
Award No.
47
I
- 2 -
assigned on October 1, 1964 as evidenced by their
Questions and Answers numbered 1
through 5
at pages
11 and 12 of their interpretations of November 24,
1965. All these Questions and Answers are concerned
with compensation of protected employees holding
regular assignments as of October 1, 1964 and nowhere in such Questions and Answers is there a
reference to the inclusion of overtime in determining the normal rate of. compensation of holders of
regularly assigned positions as of October 1, 1964."
We, wholeheartedly, agree with the conclusion that nowhere
in the Interpretations is there a reference to overtime. We would,
additionally, just as emphatically disagree with the assumption that
the aforementioned questions and answers have any bearing on the issue
in dispute. As a matter of fact, tae fail to find any guidelines to help
us resolve the question whether regular, as distinguished from irregular,
overtime is to be included in the normal rate of compensation.
Under these circumstances, we are adhering to our conclusion
reached in CL-22-W, Award No. 46, Special Board of Adjustment No. 605.
We would add one further note in support of this analysis.
In CL-22-G1, Award No. 46, normal is defined as regular, whereas the
antonym is defined as abnormal, irregular. In this dispute, the overtime '
was a regular part of his compensation -- paid whether or not he worked
the overtime hours.
Award
:
Answer to questions 1 and 2 is in the
affirmative.
qMurr
ra M. Rohman °
Neut al Member
Dated: Washington, D. C.
April 18, 1969