PARTIES ) The Wichita Union Terminal Railway Company
 TO THE ) and
 DISPUTE ) Transportation-Communication Employees Union

 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: 1. Is the Carrier in violation of Article
 IV, Section 1, in refusing to include
 compensation for rest day service nor
 mally and regularly worked by a protected
 employee on his position as of October 1,
 1964 as a part of his normal rate of
 compensation.

OPINION
 OF BOARD: 1 ie issue in this case is whether employees, who on
 October 1, 1964, :held a regularly assigned position and
 regularly ·,4or'ced one of their rest days for many months
 prior to October 1, shall :lave their "normal rate of compensation"
 calculated to include work on the sixth day.

 Dictionary definitions of "normal" offer little help. Either partv can find =o'a.ce ...^. one cr anot:ier of tile definitio:zs or tae syro::yms. But intent may often be more readily discerned from etr_.nsic cir=i:msLaaces or from tile logic of the situat;.on.

 It is doubtful t:ia= any definition which is not translatable into a consistent response to varied situations, eras
                                      Case No. TCU-96-u


intended. I'or example, should overtime work for a month prior
 to October 1, 1964, be part of the "normal" rate of compensation,
 or should an employee have worked overtimc for three months, or
 a year, or more? cIow frequently? In one case, Seaboard Coast
 Line Railroad Company and Transportation-Communication Division,
 BRAC, Award No. 3, Issue C, overtime on 50;5 or more of the em
 ployee's regularly assigned days, or calls on 50of the rest
 days, were said to be the lines of demarcation in determining
 the "normal." rate of co-,tpensatlon. Surely the parties meant
 something more definite than, this.

 If they had intended to use a rule of thumb, t=ley could easily have said so in -the February 7 Agreement. It cannot be concluded that the,., meant to be subjected to the vagaries of differing inter pretaaions, enabling one neutral to find that something which occurs 50;'. o== the time is part of the normal rate of compensation while another would require it to be 901/0' of the time, and a third would require it to have persisted for two months and another for two years prior to Oc'=ober 1, 1964.

 It is considerably more logical. to assume that the term, "normal," meant to botn parties that rate of compensation winica an em,)loyee regrularly receives for the position lie occupies without regard to extra and special payments for extra and s·Decial conditions, or w11Ct::er he wor::s overtime occasionally or generali_y, or whether he worJ:s on his rest day almost always or somctimes.

 If, for example, an employee on a regularly assigned five-day- position, for good and suff_.cieilt reasons had been wo-:king only four days per week o:: and before October 1, 1964, it could hardly be argued that his normal rate of compensation was a~= the rate of a four-day c,,ec:: because that had been his wee:cly pa- for some period pr for to October 1. Similar'-, because a dca-_ -1 o= extra or laid-off emplo-ees requires an employee to work one o° his rest days, it s'_1oul.d not be const-=ued as affecting his normal rate of compensation.

 There is sur-)port for t'1 !.s approach in the diSt__nCtioi: bCtT,·1CCn t.1C words i.1CCC in ('1i:i=__^_1_C IV, S'=C;iUil 1, and in Ar'tiC1C IV, Section z. I11 t::C -fori.ler, _-efcronCC is made 'to tile norl-.al

                          -z-

                                            Award No. 227'

                                            Case No. TCU-96-W


        rate of compensation, whereas in the latter merely compensation is the standard. Under Section 2, total compensation and total time in the year preceding the February 7 Agreement is used to calculate the amount of compensation which shall be guaranteed. Thus an extra employee covered by Section 2 might wind up with guaranteed monthly compensation different from the regular rates of the positions he fills. Section 1 sets forth the concept of a regular amount, irrespective of exigencies reguiring a sorter work wee::, a longer work week or other circumstances affecting compensation if and when they occur.


        The interpretations also support this concept. Machine Operators who are protected under Article IV, Section 1, are guaranteed "the respective rates of the various machines," according to the interpretation on Page 11. The fact that a Machine Operator worked overtime in 1964 or worked on his rest day would not affect the rates which form the basis for his guarantee. Question 4 on Page 12 identifies the compensation guarantee of the incumbent of a regularly assigned relief position as "the respective rates of the various positions on which he relieved during 1964." Here, too, it is the ordinary rate of pay which governs not the presence of premium pay for overtime.


        Finally, Award 47, depicts the kind of overtime which the parties no doubt contemplated would be part of the normal rate of compensation. It was paid whether or not the employee wor'ced. The Carrier could require those hours and the employee could not be denied them. In the instant case, however, the employees had no obligation to work the rest days nor had the Carrier the obligation either to make them available or to pay for them when they were unworked.


                              A W A R D


                  The answer to the Questions is No.

i

                                        ~'v~G'~T fo


                                Milton rriedman

                                Neutral Member


      Washington, D. C.

      November/4 , 1970


                                -3-