BEFORE PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 1837
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
AND
NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY
Case No. 70
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee
of
the Brotherhood
1. The Carrier violated the Agreement when it
failed and refused to compensate Tie Inserter
Operators J. L. Hummel and J. J. Miller, Spiker
Operators J. H. Henderson, J. L. Barnes, and R. L.
Michalo and Tie Handler Operator R. R. Hindle for
overtime service rendered from 3:30 p.m. to 4:00
p.m. on August 24, 1982. (File MW-BRS-82-32)
2. The Claimants listed in Part 1 shall each be
allowed one-half hour overtime compensation for
service rendered from 3:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on
August 24, 1982.
FINDINGS:
On October 15, 1982, the Organization notified the Carrier
that it had violated provisions of the parties' effective working
agreement dated April 1, 1951, when it failed and refused to
compensate Claimants J. L. Hummel, J. J. Miller, J. H. Henderson,
J. L. Barnes, R. L. Michalo and R. R. Hindle one-half (1/2) hour
overtime. The Claimants worked until 4:00 p.m., and the Carrier
compensated them only through their quitting time of 3:30 p.m.
The Organization cites the following rule:
Rules 22 (A), 22 (B), and 27:
Time worked preceding or following and continuous
with a regularly assigned eight-hour work period
shall be computed on the actual minute basis and
shall be paid at time and one-half rates and
Au,,o '7o - / $ 3 7
double-time rates after sixteen (16) continuous
hours of work.
The Carrier's position is that no overtime was worked by the
Claimants and the claim was denied. The Claimants were members
of the T7 tie force, and the Carrier states that all members
stopped their actual work on the claimed date in sufficient time
to allow their return to their camp outfit so they could be
relieved in accordance with their assignment. The Carrier
asserts that the Claimants chose to return to their camp cars via
private automobiles rather than company-provided transportation.
By doing so, the Carrier asserts that the Claimants arrived at
their camp cars later than the employees who used companyprovided transportation, thus causing the alleged overtime.
This Board has reviewed the record in this case, and we find
that the organization has not met its burden of proof that the
Claimants worked any overtime or were eligible for overtime pay
on August 24, 1982. The record is clear that the employees who
elected to ride in their personal automobiles did not arrive
until after the employees who took the Company-provided
transportation. The Claimants decided to stop at a convenience
store on their way. The employees transported in Carrier
vehicles arrived at the camp cars at the prescribed quitting
time. The claimants who decided to go on their own came in
later. That, however, does not make them eligible for overtime
pay.
The Organization has not met its burden of proof that the
2
'*'-'0 70
- 1837
Claimants were eligible for overtime pay and, therefore, the
claim must be denied.
AWARD:
Claim denied
PETER R YERS
Neutral ember
Carrier Member
Dated:
If -
r fanization Mem e