SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 605
PARTIES ) Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International
TO ) Union
DISPUTE ) and
Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad
Company
QUESTION
AT ISSUE: EMPLOYEES' STATEMENT OF QUESTION AT ISSUE
The question at issue is whether or not an extra protected
employee is entitled to reasonable notice before he is considered as not available for service within the meaning of
Article IV, Section 2 of the Agreement?
CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF QUESTION AT ISSUE
The question at issue is whether the Carrier properly deducted the amount of $175.48 from Theodore Hayman's
monthly guarantee for a period when he was not available
for service within the meaning of Article IV, Section 2,
of the Agreement.
OPINION
OF BOARD: Resolution of this dispute centers on the meaning and effect
of that portion of Article IV, Section 2 that provides:
"* * * if his compensation in his
current employment is less * * * than his
average base period compensation * * * he
shall be paid the difference less compen
sation for any time lost on account of
voluntary absences to the extent that he
is not available for service
* * *." (Un
derscoring added)
Claimant was a protected employe (Lounge Car Porter) with a
protected rate of $424.33 per month.
On August 20, 1965, Claimant, according to Carrier, was called
by telephone to perform service on the following day on Trains 3 and 4. There
was no answer at the number called by Carrier (and designated by Claimant as
his residence number.)
Carrier deducted the sum of $175.48 from Claimant's guaranteed
compensation payment on the grounds that had Claimant responded to the call
and worked, he would have earned the sum of $175.48 (74.8 hours at $2.346 per
hour). Carrier took credit for that amount as well as $52.48 that Claimant
had earned, and reduced his guaranteed compensation payment for August 1965 to
$196.37.
Carrier takes the position that Claimant was not "available
for service" when he failed to respond to a telephone call. (The record shows
that only one attempt was made to reach Claimant.) Carrier further contends
Award No. 314
Case No. HERE-9-W
_ 2 -
that the responsibility on the part of Claimant to respond to a telephone
call is consistent with the intent of the February 7 Agreement to protect
an employe above and beyond what he might earn in available service, and to
excuse Claimant for missing a call would violate the intent of the Agreement.
As such, Carrier submits, an employe would simply assert that he was not at
home (or not answer the telephone) and would be entitled to receive his
monthly protected allowance without any effort to protect his assignment.
Lastly, Carrier asserts that it was its practice (unacknowledged by the Organization) to deduct what an employe would have earned if he could not be
reached.
The organization takes the position that 1) there was no
evidence that Claimant was voluntarily absent or unavailable for service,
and 2) Carrier's position would require that an employe's telephone be
attended 24 hours a day to avoid the risk of losing compensation on the
charge that he was not "available for service."
A solitary attempt to contact Claimant that was unsuccessful,
without more, does not constitute a voluntary absence. Under the specific
circumstances of this dispute, the deduction was improper.
AWARD
The answer to the question submitted by the Organization is
in the affirmative.
low
The answer to the question submitted by the Carrier is in
the negative.
Dated: Washington, D. C.
July 27, 1972 r10