PARTIES ) St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
TO THE ) and
DISPUTE ) Brotherhood of Maintenance of 'lay Employes
QUESTIONS
AT ISSUE: (1) Did the Carrier violate the provisions
of the February 7, 1965 Agreement, parti
cularly Article IV, Section 1 thereof when,
effective August 16, 1972, it refused to
continue to include in the normal rate of
compensation for protected Truck Drivers
Laborers Earl A. Sharp and N. G. Mead the
one-half hour of overtime compensation which
they received on each and every work day of
the regular position to which they were
assigned on October 1, 1964?
(2) Shall the Carrier be required to now
compute and base the claimants' normal rate
of compensation so as to include one-half
hour of time and one-half pay for each work
day?
(3) Shall the Carrier be required to now
allow the claimants one-half hour of pay at
their time and one-half rate for the work
day of August 16, 1972 and for each work day
subsequent thereto until the claimants' normal
rate of compensation has been adjusted as per
(2) above?
(4) Shall interest in the amount of 6% per
annum, compounded annually, be paid by the
Carrier on the amount due to the claimants
under (3) above?
OPINION
OF BOARD: The discussions on the property do not indicate that
the overtime involved in this case had been mandatory
prior to October 1, 1964, or that as in Award No. 47, it had been
regularly paid on a daily basis whether all, part or none of it
was worked.
A,1A12D NO.
Case No. T~1-55- d
There is no significant distinction between the facts
of this case and those in such awards as 227 and 254. The frequency of overtime, which was voluntarily granted and could be
·Jithdrawn at will, is not a determinant of the normal rate of
compensation in Article IV, Section 1.
AWARD
The Answer to the Question is No.
Mil on Friedman
Neutral Member
Dated: Washington, D. C.
October
/jv,
1973 _
m
c. s~
\.; J
, 0
^`
-2-