Case Nos. 350 and 388
Award No. 185
Punic
LAW BOARD NO. 2960
PAR77ES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
TQ
and
DIS Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
"1. The Agreement was violated when the Carrier changed the
starting time and meal period of Surfacing Gangs 701 and 734
from 7:30 A.M. on June 13 through June 29, 1990
(Organization File 4PG-3358T; Carrier File 81-90-119).
"2. As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part 1 above,
the Claimants (listed in the attached to Employes' Exhibit B-3)
' . . . must be compensated for 1.5 hours at their applicable
straight time rates of pay for the hours of 7:30 AM to 9:00 AM
on each date of claim. Claimants must be compensated the
differential between the straight time rate received and time and
one-half rate entitled to for the 1.5 hours worked between
4:00 PM and 5:30 PM on each date of claim. Additionally,
Claimants must be compensated 20 minutes at time and one-half
rate per day for a meal period plus the $7.00 evening meal
allowance for each date worked continued two hours or more
beyond the normal quitting time of 4:00 PM for all dates
worked June 13 through June 29, 1990, inclusive."'
FINDINGS: This Board, upon the whole record and all of the evidence, finds that the
Employees and Carrier involved in this dispute are respectively Employees and Carrier
within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as amended and that the Board has jurisdiction
over the dispute involved herein.
OPINION Op' THE BOARD: While there are some minor differences in facts, the two
cases before the Board involve the same issue. For example, the Carrier changed the
starting time of one of the Gangs in question from 7:30 a.m. to 10 a.m.. Thus, instead of
working a shift from 7:30 am. to 4 p.m., they worked 10 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. There is no
dispute that the Carrier gave notice of the change or that they sought the concurrence of the
PLZ
z9tPo
-140 8~
Case Nos. 350 and 388
Page 2
General Chairman. The Parties could not agree, and as provided for in the rule, the Carrier
implemented the change subject to the Organization's right to file a grievance.
The applicable rule reads as follows:
"Rule 24 - STARTING TIME
"The starting time of the work period for regularly assigned service will not be
earlier than 6:00 A.M. nor later than 8:00 A.M., except the starting time may
be otherwise arranged by Agreement between representatives of the
Organization and the Management based on actual -service requirements. The
starting time will not be changed for the purpose of taking care of temporary
conditions of twelve (12) days or less, nor will it be changed without first
giving employes affected thirty-six (36) hours' notice of such change.
"(a) Where a single shift is employed, the starting time of such shift
shall not be earlier than 6:00 A.M. and not later than 8:00
A.M.
"(b) Where two shifts are employed, the starting time of the first
shift shall be governed by paragraph (a) of this Rule, and the
second shift shall not start later than 8:00 P.M.
NOTE: The provisions of
paragraphs (a) and
(b) of this Rule may
be waived by
agreement between
the Assistant
Division Manager
Engineering and the
General Chairman.
"(c) Where three shifts are employed in continuous service, the
starting time of the frst shift shall be governed by paragraph (a)
of this Rule. The spread of each shift shall be eight consecutive
hours, including an allowance of twenty minutes for lunch.
"(d) If an operational problem arises which the Company contends
cannot be met under provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof,
and the employes contend to the contrary, and if the parties fail
to agree thereon, then if the Company nevertheless puts such
f
Le-9~0-
fawn t 8
~'
Case Nos. 350 and 388
Page 3
assignments into effect, the dispute may be processed as a
grievance of claim."
This case turns on whether the Carrier has demonstrated that an operational problem
existed which justified the change in starting time. It is the opinion of the Board that the
Carrier's case in this regard is long on rhetoric and short on proof. For instance, they
contended they had time sensitive trains with built-in penalties for failing to meet the
schedule, yet there is no documentation of this fact. Similarly there is no documentation that
the train had to or did in fact run through the areas in question between 7:30 a.m. and
10 a.m.
The remaining question is one of remedy. The Board believes the proper remedy is
to direct the Carrier to compensate the Claimants at the overtime rate for all hours worked
after the normal quitting time. The Claimants were already paid straight time, so they are
entitled to the difference between straight time and overtime.
AWARD
The claim is sustained to the extent indicated above.
0~7~
D. Bartholomay ~~ Harvieux
Union Member / jafrier Member
Dated: October
3 1
1994. -