AWARD NO.
Case No. 11
PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 3269
PARTIES ) BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS
TO )
DISPUTE ) THE BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim is made on behalf of Engineer W. V. Hutchison, 52194, for
shortage on the following dates, October 18, 20, 25, 26, and
29th on pay period ending 10-29 in the amount of $136.30:'
(Case No. 26142 - Div. 452)
FINDINGS:
The Board, after hearing upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that
the parties herein are Carrier and Employee respectively within the meaning of the Railway
Labor Act, as amended; this Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and the
parties were given due notice of hearing thereon.
The dispute here at issue arises from the Carrier having taken Claimant "off
pay" for those periods of time on the dates in question when Carrier managerial personnel
performed switching to an industrial plant being struck by outside, or plant employees, the
Carrier having released and returned Claimant to duty on each of the separate days.
Essentially, the nature of the dispute and the handling accorded Claimant and his
crew does not differ materially from like disputes heard and determined by Public Law
Board No. 717 (Award No. 187), with Referee John Criswell assisting, and Public Law Board
No. 1245 (Award No. 1), with Referee Preston J. Moore assisting, and wherein both Awards
sustained like claims of employees.
PI-3 )uo_
32(o9
AWD ND
· 9
We endorse the Findings of the above mentioned Boards as properly dispositive : '
the particular nature of the issue before us, especially that part of the Findings of PL3
No. 1245 wherein it was held:
"In this dispute the claimants came on duty, performed service
and were then relieved, or actually held on duty at a particular
point until they returned to duty at the same point at a later
hour. Although the claimants were performing no service for the
Carrier, the Carrier elected to hold them on duty until the
switching was completed at the industry.
"There are no provisions in the Agreement which would allow the
Carrier to require the claimants to remain at that point without
being under pay. The Carrier could have released the crew
from duty when the officers commenced to do the switching
and only paid the claimants for the amount of time that they
were on duty.
"However this is not the case before this Board. The claimants
were subject to duty and were available to perform any other
service required of them by the Carrier. The fact that the
Carrier left them idle at that point does not release them from
duty. Therefore the Board finds that the claims are valid."
AWARD:
Claim sustained.
ORDER:
Carrier is directed to make this Award effective within 30 calendar days of the
date set forth below.
Robert E. Peterson, Chairman
and Neutral Member
- d
r~IGd
. 7. 'wulski, Carrier A1embkr 1. W. Crawford, Organi ' 'on :Member
Baltimore, Md.
April 11, 1985