PARTIES ) St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
TO THE ) and
DISPUTE ) Transportation-Communication Employees Union
QUESTIONS
AT ISSUE: 1. Does Carrier violate Article IV, Section 1
when it refuses to include compensation
for overtime regularly worked by a pro
tected employe on his position, October 1,
1964, as a part of his normal rate of com
pensation?
2. Is a protected employe, who, for the reason
that his position was abolished, displaced
(or bumped) another employe on a lower-rated
position, considered to have voluntarily exercised his seniority within the meaning of
Article IV, Section 3?
3. Do the Time Limit provisions set forth in
Article V of the National Agreement of
August 21, 1954, apply with respect to
claims declined by Carrier's highest officer
prior to November 24,1965?
OPINION
OF BOARD: 1. Various Awards of this Board, including 227, have
held that compensation for overtime, which was worked
as requested, is not part of the normal rate of compen
sation.
2. If an employee's position is abolished by Carrier,
his subsequent displacement of another employee doea not constt.tute a voluntary exercise of seniority, as has been stated in
other Board Awards, including 208. Carrier contends that the
amounts due have been paid to two of the three employees involved
in this issue but the third, A. M. Thompson, is entitled to the
amount claimed.
3. These claims for compensation involve an interpretation of the February 7, Agreement. Consequently, time
AWARD NO.
Case
No. TCU-19-W
limits did not begin to run on them until 30 days after the
Interpretations of November
24, 1965,
in accordance with
Award 131.
AWARD
For the purposes of this case, the Answer
to the Questions is
No.
Milton Friedman
Neutral Member
Dated: May
I9,
1972
Washington, D.C.
(t
Ft\,
4404