PARTIES TO DISPUTE:



        Chicago & North Western Transportation Company


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

    Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:


    (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when:


          (a) On November 2, 1983, Trackman John DeGrand and Gregg Larson were required to report at 7 a.m. instead of 7:30 a.m.


          (b) On November 4, 1983, Trackman Gregg Larson was not compensated at the overtime rate from 3:30 p.m. until 6:30 p.m.


          (c) On November 9, 1983, Trackmen John D~Grand, Gregg Larson, Tom Guenther and Brent Berglund were required to report at 7:30 a.m. and remain on the property until 11:30 a.m. but were not compensated therefore.


        (2) The Claimants shall be allowed the remedy set forth below:


        Name Employee No. Hours Expenses

        John DeGrand 118173 1 Hr. OT $20.00

        4 Hr. ST

        Gregg Larson 132119 4 Hr. OT $20.00

        4 Hr. ST

        Brent Berglund 132234 4 Hr. ST $20.00:

        Thomas Guenther 134558 4 Hr. ST $20.00

                                        a~t~o -' l!3


OPINION OF THE BOARD
 This Board, upon the whole record and all of the evidence, finds and holds that the Employe and Carrier involved in this - dispute are respectively Employe and Carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that the Board has jurisdic-
 tion over the dispute involved herein..
 This case involves three different factual situations.- With respect to the claims for November 2 and November 4, there is no basis in this record to resolve the sharp conflicts in the critical facts. For instance, the Claimants contend that on November 2, 1983, they were required to report to duty one-half hour early. Yet, the Carrier claims that according to the work report submitted by the Foreman of Claimant's crew, all-members of the crew, including the Claimants, began work at their designated starting time. Thus, there is no basis to make the factual finding necessary to sustain the claim.
 A similar irreconcilable set of facts also exists with respect to the claim for November 4. The Claimant bares allegation that he was required to work overtime from 3:30 to 6:30 p.m. However, the Carrier indicated that their records show that the Claimant did, in fact, perform service'outside regularly assigned hours from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on November 4, 1983, for which he was allowed 2.0 additional hours pay at the overtime rate.
 The last portion of the case relates to November 9. Here,
 there is general agreement on the facts. On the day in question,
 the Claimants arrived at the work site with other members of the
 - 2-
 . . ~ g Go-Jl3

    Ballast Undercutter Cleaner crew to which all. were`' assigned, and were instructed to remain in their vehicles until the rain had let up enough to begin work. At approximately 11:30 a.m., the crew was directed to begin preparation for the day's work. At a point in time, before the Claimants began work, a conversation took place between them and a Management official. .For reasons that are not apparent in the record, nor particularly pertinent, the Claimants resigned their seniority on the Central Division intending to return to their home division before commencing work.

    This portion of the claim involves the application and interpretation of Rule 36 which states:


      "Except as provided in Rule 12(c), hourly rated employees

required to report at the usual scheduled time and place
 for the day's work, and when conditions prevent such work
 being performed, will be allowed a minimum of four (4)
 hours; if held on duty over four (4) hours, actual time so
 held will be paid for."
 It is apparent that the application of Rule 36 is triggered when
 conditions prevent the employe, who reports at the usual time and
 place, from working. The compensation provided in the Rule is
 intended to compensate the employe for the time consumed in
 waiting for conditions to clear, and when they ultimately, as a -
 result of the weather, are denied an opportunity to work a full
 day. If they do not work a full day, they are paid a minimum of
 four hours, or actual time, whichever is greater.
 In this case, the weather did clear and the rest of the crew went to work. Therefore, the Claimants were not ultimately prevented from working due to weather conditions, but due to their resignation. Rule 36 was only applied to time spent wait-
                                            a9/ o -/J3


ing, if they were sent home because weather conditions caused Management to cancel the day's work'. It is only under these limited circumstances that an employe in such situations received pay for time not worked.
    Accordingly, the Claims are denied.


AWARD:
    The Claims are denied.,.


~ernoirman

 .4. ='._ ' G, -, jV a V,
 Ff. .. Harper, Emp- ember ar j!. ~mon arrier Member
                                              -


                              J ~ V Dated: