PARTIES) Soo Line Railroad Company
TO THE ) and
DISPUTE) TC Division - BRAC
QUESTIONS
AT ISSUE: 1. Did Carrier violate Article V of the
February 7, 1965 Agreement when it failed
to consider 284~ per day allowed Claimant
J. D. Larson for operating a highway crossing
signal as part of his daily rate in computing
his separation allowance.
2. If the answer to Item (1) is in the affirmative, Carrier shall be required to recompute
J. D. Larson's separation allowance and
include the 284 per day.
OPINION
OF BOARD: Claimant was entitled to a separation allowance at
the time his position was abolished. For many years
he had received, in addition to his regular rate of pay, $6.00
per month for operating crossing gates or crossing signals.
Rule 19(c) of the schedule agreement provides:
Telegraphers or Levermen who are required
to operate crossing gates or crossing
signals, or flag crossings, will be allowed
$6.00 per month in addition to the rates
shown in schedule, except that after September 1, 1949 employes shall be allowed the
same amount for performing such service on
five days per week as they formerly received
for performing such service six days per week
and employes performing service on the relief
days of the position shall be allowed additional
proportionate amounts.
Carrier contends that the 28fi par day sought by Claimant, based upon the $6.00 per month figure, should not be included
in the separation allowance. It argues that this amount is not
AWARD NO. 30Case No. TC-BRAC-109-W B~-109-W
-
part of "the normal rate of compensation," which is the measure
of the protected rate under Article IV of the February 7 Agreement. The organization contends that the $6.00 allowance has
been part of Claimant's daily rate of pay for many years.
Under section 9 of the
Washington Job
Protection
Agreement, a monthly separation allowance is "computed by
multiplying by 30 the daily rate of pay received by the employee
in the position last occupied." Article V of the February 7
Agreement provides that a separation allowance shall be computed
in accordance with Section 9 of the
Washington Agreement
.
There is no reason to find that the February 7 Agreement's "normal rate of compensation" is or was intended to be the
identical counterpart of "the daily rate of pay" specified in
the Washington Agreement. The language of neither Agreement is
automatically transferrable to the other.
In arguing that the $6.00 is not wages, carrier
points out that special allowances, including this one, have
not changed when general wage increases have been effectuated.
The freezing of the $6.00 for many years is not dispositive.
The parties have considered these payments to constitute a
"special allowance" over and above the hourly rate. But the
issue is whether such a regularly paid, long-standing special
allowance is, in fact, part of the "daily rate of pay received
by the employee." The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Rule 19(c) of the schedule agreement provides that
the allowance goes to employees "who are required to operate
crossing gates..." This work assignment was not optional or
voluntary, since the position occupied by Claimant required the
operation of crossing signals. It was a condition of the job
itself for which a contractual amount was paid, a mandatory and
integral part of the tour of duty. It is certainly dissimilar
from either occasional or sustained overtime work, which may be
offered or withdrawn by Carrier and which might be declined by
an employee. It is not equivalent to a housing allowance,
which
are merely expenses in lieu of accommodations.
Claimant's job was a two-fold one for which he
received compensation in two parts. Handling the crossing
signals was a basic part of the job he was called upon to do,
and
consequently the
compensation payable for it was an integral
part of his daily rate of pay.
-2-
J
AWARD NO.
.3 n
Case No.
TC-BRAC-109-W
Where compensation for specific work is granted by
Carrier, as is true here, the fact that it is calculated as a
fixed side payment does not alter its character as part of the
employee's "daily rate of pay." If a separate sum is contractually
granted to an employee for any extra duty, which was a required
and invariant part of his job, it can logically be considered
part of his daily rate under section 9 of the Washington Agreement, whether computed hourly, weekly or monthly. It may or
may not meet the definition in Article IV, Section 1, of the
February 7 Agreement. But it certainly is an established part
of claimant's daily rate of pay for the work regularly required in
his position.
AWARD
The Answer to the Questions is Yes.
. Z
,6
2~lton Friedman
Neutral Member
Dated: May 1972
Washington, D. C.
-3-