PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 1850
Award No. 15
Docket No. 31
BMWE File TOL-1613
Carrier File 2-MG-1552
Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
to and
Dispute The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
Statement Claim filed on behalf of Trackman Cardell Bowling and
of Vernus Bowling for one and one-half (1 1/2) hours' pay
Claim on account of only being allowed six and one-half (6 1/2)
hours' pay on January 16, 1976 when they were on duty
eight (8) hours on said date.
Findings The Board, after hearing upon the whole record and all
evidence, finds that the parties herein are Carrier and
Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as
amended, that this Board is duly constituted by Agreement
dated October 27, 1976, that it has jurisdiction of the
parties-and the subject matter, and that the parties were
given due notice of the hearing held.
Claimant Trackman, on January 16, 1976, reported with their
truck to Syanid behind the Fisher Body Plant, their assigned
work location for that day, to work with other Maintenance
of Way Forces.
The Employees assert that Claimants and their Foreman re
. mained in their truck because of the heavy rain until
about 10:00 AM, when it let up after which Claimants
. , pLC3 1-85® .
Award No. 15
Page 2
went to work. They were paid for only 6 1/2 hours.
Also at this location were a Welder and a Welder Helper
who had previously been working at another location and
who left same in a separate truck and joined Claimants.
However, when the Welders arrived on the job site with
Claimants they were unable to work because the work to .
be performed by them had to be done in conjunction with
Claimant Trackmen. Hence, such could not be performed
until Claimants got off their truck. The Welders were
paid for eight (8) hours.
The parties are in agreement that Claimants were sitting -
in their truck for 1 1/2 hours on the morning of January
16, 1976 before they 'went to work.
The provision of the Agreement here involved, - Rule 16 -
"GUARANTEE" - reads:
"(b) Trackmen and extra gang men required to
report at usual starting time and place for
the days work will be allowed a minimum of four
(4) hours when conditions prevent work being
performed. If held on duty over four (4)
hours, they will be paid for actual time held.
When laid off on account of inclement weather
after the beginning of 'the days work and again
required to work for service during their regular
tour of duty, they will be paid under the Call
Rule.
(c). When less then eight (8) hours of work for
the convenience of employees only actual hours
' worked or held on duty will be paid for."
' PL
G
Award No. 15
Page 3
The Employees assert that because the Welders had been
paid eight hours and that Claimantswere only paid for
six and one-half hours that they were discriminated
against, that Claimants are entitled to eight hours pay
under Rule 16, the same as was paid to the Welders.
The record reflects that it was not denied that the Welder
and the Welder Helper had already been working and had left
another location in a separate truck to join Claimants
and that said Welders were unable to perform any work
until Claimant Trackmen, who were sitting in the truck
and had refused to go out in the "light" rain,had gone
/ to work. Said Welders were, in effect, ready, willing
and able to work. Therefore they were paid. Claimants, on
the other hand, had in effect, refused to work for about
one and,one-half hours.
The facts herein appear similar, if not identical, to
those in Case No. 11 of PLB No. 1210, on this property.
There, a claim was made for two hours for the Trackmen
involved, and six hours each for those Claimants other
then Trackmen account not working because of inclement
weather. There, Machine Operators refused to work due
to the weather and consequently, the Trackmen could not
\ work because, as pointed out in Award 11, "without the
machines this unit is unable to perform the installation
' /p L i3 1850
Award No. 15
Page 4
of ties as scheduled". It was also held therein that:
"The inference is clear that if the Machine
Operators had been willing to work the whole
unit would have been working, weather notwithstanding. The record also shows that the
Assistant Division Engineer requested that the
machines be started and the Operators refused
to do so."
The Board in its Award No. 11 sustained the claim of the
Trackmen but denied the claim of the Operators.
.r
This Board finds in the instant case that on the facts
of this record Claimant Trackmen refused to work, after
being so requested by their Foreman, and that the
Welder and Welder Helper were totally dependent on the
performance of their work after the Trackmen had commenced
working. Thus, the only reason Claimants failed to
receive eight (8) hours, compensation was the result of
their voluntary refusal to commence work at the work site.
Foreman Mullen's opinion that the conditions existing on
January 16, 1976 did not prevent the necessary track
work from being performed was not previously disputed.
Hence, as Third Division Award No. 16746 (Friedman)
held:
" ...Claimants have not justified their refusal
to perform the assigned work. Under the
circumstances Carrier had no obligation to
assign the men elsewhere. Their failure to
work was the result of a voluntary choice and
the loss of time which resulted therefrom requires
no recompense under any rule in the Agreement."
'
-r
· PLO i85o
Award No. 15
Page 5
Consequently, the instant claim will be denied.
Award Claim denied.
re urpe ,- r., oy m er o s ey, tier em er
n
L
an art, Chairman
and Neutral Member
Issued at Salem, New Jersey, April 15, 1980.