SPECL~T. EW_Ri) 0" Adt;STi3NT i'0. 605
PARTTLS ) Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders
i0 ) International Union
DISPUTE
) and
Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Cc_apc:;y
QUESTION
AT ISSUE: T'ne question at issue is waere a protected e_::;~loy~,. _.,
unavailable for Service ~a4thin the m-anin- oZ the
_t._ e_._
:t
account of outside employnn2nt,
a
Carrier can,
pu_SCLn't
to
Article IV, Section 2, deLuct frcra the employee's :::o:a!:~y
guaranteed compensation, an :mount in excess of tnc tit::a
lost because of his unavailability.
OPINION
OF BOARD: Claimant, a protected employee, was e-ployed by ~c.___er as a
waiter. Claimant was assiSned to work in a privat_ dinL:g car
(which was
owned and operated by Carrier, but the c;or:: was not
covered by the Agreement between the parties).
As a consequence Claimant was unavailable to work oz t~,:o occasions
in November 1965. The lost earnings were $40.89 for one occas_cn and $30.15 for
the other. These amounts were deducted from his monthly gua-_antee of $460.26. In
addition Carrier deducted the $80.00 which Claimant earned while worki_o in the
private car.
Carrier initially raised a ti:T:= iirit question. Since no compensation was involved, both parties agreed to waive the tire limit question.
_,
The Organization agrees that Claimant was not en;:_:.~ed to cc=,-3e.^.sation during the period of his unavailability pursuant to Section 2 Article IV.
It objects to the additional deduction of amounts earned by him in outsice employment during the period of his unavailability.
This contention is consistent with the opinion, in :ward :Zo. 53
where it found:
" * %~ that there is no such qualification unc.er
the terms of the February 7 f:-Ireemunt - whether the
employee is covrcnsated by the Carrier under a
different bargaining agreement, receives cc::~pensation as
a
result of emplo;mant outside the
industry, or even receives compansation under the
terms of an insurance policy. As such th- protected employee is entitled to compansaticn under
the February 7 Agreement without offset."
~n::rd :;o. 193
n r :>
w;c
i;o. LU_c,.-3-
M.;
a n
D'
The answer to the question presented is in the ne;zz=:e.
Nicaola!s H* izumas
Neutral '~mber
Dated: Washington, D. C
January 7, 1970