Case No. SG-21-d

SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUST"_NT NO. 605

PARTS ) Union Pacific Railroad Company

TO Tr ue ) and

DISPUTE ) Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen

ISSUE IN

DISPUTE: Claim on behalf of :Ir. G. R. rendricks

for the difference in rate of pay

between that of Relay Repairman and

Signal Inspeactor (including stibseauent _

general wage increases), beginning on

August 22, 1906, and continuing until

he is returned to a position of Signal -

Inspector or an equal rate of pay.

OPINION 11hen a hot box detector was installed in Goosing,

OF BOARD: Idaho, the CTC Maintainer's position, Gihich was

held by C. L. Peterson, Jr., was reclassified to

CTC Carrier Maintainer. Although Carrier had been willing to

come to an agreement with the Employes to retain :.7r. Pelerson

in the new position, the Employes insisted that it be bulletined.

As a result of the bulletin, it was successfully bid by C. E. Dawson, who had greater seniority than ,=. Peterson. Mr. Peterson, whose original position was now non-existent, displaced another employee and the chain of displacements ended with Claimant, a protected Signal Inspector, bumping into a Relay Repairman position.

. The issue to be determined is whether Claimant

is entitled to guaranteed compensation as a Signal inspector or

he has lost that right pursuant to Article IV, Section 3, which

provides in part:

Any protected employee who in the normal exercise of his seniority bids in a job or is bumped as a result of such an employee exercising his seniority in the normal vay by reason of a voluntary action, will not

' FU.'r :?D NO.

!'.

Case No. SG-2l--,,-1

A

be entitled to have his compensation preserved as provided in Sections 1 and 2 hereof, but will be compensated

_ at.the rate of pay and conditions of

the job he bids in...

Mr. Dawson did not bump ;;:r. Peterson out of a position by voluntary exercise of seniority. rCne CTC Carrier maintainer position was up for bid. once it had been created, Mr. Peterson had no right to it unless he were the senior qualified bidder. He was not. Aav-ing no position, he was o'aliged to use his seniority to displace another employee and this involuntary action precipitated the series of bumps which cul-. minated in Claimant's displacement.

`that Carrier was willing to skirt the schedule agreement by agreeing with the Employes to retain Mr. Poterson in the new position, while the Employes were un·.ailling, does not in some way demonstrate that Mr. Peterson was displaced by the Employes' voluntary action. The party which insists upon the application of a mutual agreement does not thereby become individually and separately responsible for what ensues.

Thus the problem is not to determine responsibility for the bulletining. The fact is that Mr. Peterson lost his position as a result of it. It is true that Mr. Dawson bid voluntarily, but he did not bump Mr. Peterson. The latter had no claim to the CTC Carrier Maintainer position since he lacked the seniority to obtain it. Carrier had effectively disestablished Mr. Peterson from his CTC Maintainer position once it created the new one and filled it in accordance with the schedule agreement. All that followed was due to this.

An employee who has no contractual right to a -
position is not displaced when another voluntarily exercises
his seniority to bid into it. It must be held that Mr. Peter
son's loss of his CTC Maintainer position was due to Carrier's
action, and the series of bumps did not result from a displace
ment due to voluntary exercise of seniority.

-2-

it

A7-71FJ 170. d~<~

Case No. S: -21-:1

A W A R D

Claim sustained.

'i

Mi~i:on rricuMun

Neutral Memb--r

Washington, D. C.
December g , 1969

AWARD NO. 165

(INTERPRETATION)

Case No. SG-21-W

SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 605

PARTIES ) Union Pacific Railroad Company
TO THE ) and
DISPUTE ) Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen

ISSUE IN
DISPUTE: The question submitted to this tribunal
in this case was a claim for the differ
ence in pay between that of Relay Repair
man and Signal Inspector, including sub
sequent general wage increases, beginning
August 22, 1966, and continuing until the
Claimant was returned to a position of
Signal Inspector or an equal rate of pay.
Award No. 165 sustained that claim. How
ever, a dispute arose afterward on the
property because the Organization was not
satisfied with the manner in which Carrier
tried to apply the Award, as explained
hereinafter.
OPINION
OF BOARD: Award No. 165 sustained the claim for the retention
of the guaranteed compensation of Claimant G. R. Hen
dricks, an employee working as a,Relay Repairman who
is protected as a Signal Inspector. However, the parties were
unable to ag..ee on the manner of calculating the compensation
due him. Carrier offset the overtime earnings which Claimant
had on his Relay Repairman position and the organization con
tended that this was improper.

The Signal Inspector is paid on a monthly salary basis. The Relay Repairman is paid on an hourly basis.

The organization's contention is summed up in the following statement in its brief:

AWARD NO. 165

(INTERPRETATION)

Case No. SG-21-W

Claimant Hendricks had worked a normal work week of five days on the Signal Inspector position. Therefore, when Carrier requires him to work overtime on the hourly rated position, and then applies overtime pay for that work toward the guarantee, he is placed in a worse position. In effect, he is being required to perform free overtime service.

However, Carrier cites Rule 10 (f) of the Schedule Agreement which provides that Signal Inspectors are "assigned one regular rest day per week, Sunday if possible." Rule 39 lists the Signal Inspector's salary and contains . note that "all monthly rates of pay are based on 211 hours :er month," which was subsequently adjusted for holidays to 211 2/3 hours.

Thus it must be determined if a monthly position based upon 211 2/3 hours, with overtime specified on the seventh day, should be treated for the purposes of the February 7 Agreement as a five-day position, whether or not it ordinarily works only a five-day week.

It is acknowledged that Signal Inspectors r-,ceive no overtime pay if and when they are required to work be;-,nd a five-day forty-hour week. Carrier argues that t':is occurs in emergency situations, in travel, in writing repcyts, in meeting with supervision, and the like. The Organization suggests it is seldom. Carrier asserts that whether or not the additional time is actually worked, the salary was designed to cover all such hours in excess of 40 per week.

This is not a situation in which an employee with guaranteed comp!.nsation based on a 40-hour position works on a lower-rated position and puts in overtime hours, which Carrier then seeks to offset against the guarantee. Claimant Hendricks does not hold a protected 40-hour position. He may on occasion, frequently, or always have worked 40 hours but he was being paid for 211 2/3 hours, according to the schedule agreement.

-2-

AWARD NO. 165

(INTERPRETATION)

Case No. SG-21-W

As in Award 229, to pay him separately for some occasional hours in excess of 40 per week beyond his monthly guarantee would be to treat him more favorably than if he continued to hold the Signal Inspector position, where circumstances might cause him also to work over 40 hours. If that occurred, a Signal Inspector would receive no additional pay besides his monthly salary. Thus, unless the hours on the Relay Repairman position exceeded those which can be required of a Signal Inspector, there are no persuasive grounds for complaint.

A W A R D

Claimant's overtime pay as a Relay Repairman may be offset in computing the guarantee due him.

Milton Friedman

Neutral Member

Dated:

Washington, D. C.

November 17, 1971