4




    PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

          Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees

          And

          Southern Railway Company


    STATEMENT OF CLAIM:


          Claim of Charles L. Longshore, et al., for pay at

          their respective rates for 2-1/2 hours at the

          overtime rate for May 24, 1983, account of being

          required to take a rules test after working hours.


    FINDINGS:

    Claimants, on May 24, 1983, attended a rules class at Selma, Alabama, after normal working hours. The Organization filed claim on behalf of Claimants seeking 2-1/2 hours overtime pay on account that Claimants were required to attend the above-cited rules class after working hours.

    The issue to be decided in this dispute is whether the Carrier violated the Agreement by requiring Claimants to attend a rules class at a time other than during normal working hours.

    The position of the Carrier is that nothing in the Agreement requires it to hold the classes during working hours. The Carrier first contends that the classes in question are for the mutual benefit of itself and its employees. In support

                                                3tfys=;?8


of its position, the Carrier cites the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970,--which it contends was designed to better ensure railroad safety. Specifically,-the-Carrier-cites Section 217.11 (a) of Fed.- Reg., Vol. 39, No. 228, stating

              "To ensure that each railroad employee

          whose activities are-governed by the railroad's

          operating rules understands those rules, each,6 rilrad to which this part applies shall


          eriodicall instruct that em to ee on the

meaning and application of t e railroad's
 operating rules in accordance with ogram
 filed with the Federal Railroad AdOnH trator."
 The Carrier maintains that since Federal law requires that
 these classes be given, they are clearly mutually beneficial
 in that employees are required to understand the operating
 rules in order to retain employment. The Carrier further
 cites several awards holding that rules classes-serve a mutually
 beneficial purpose and therefore do not require that employees
 be additionally compensated for attending them. The Carrier
 maintains that these awards firmly establish that compensation
 is not required under the circumstances of this case.
 The Carrier also asserts that the Agreement does not contemplate compensation for attending rules classes. The Carrier maintains that the Rules cited by the Organization, namely Rules 24 (a) and 28, are not applicable to this Claim. The Carrier contends that both Rule 24 (a) and 28 refer to "work", and that attending rules classes does not constitute "work". In support of its position, the Carrier cites several awards allegedly holding that attending rules classes-is not considered "work" or "service".

                        - 2 _

                                            PLB No. 3445 AWARD NO. 28 CASE N0. 28


Finally, the Carrier denies that its past practice has been to hold rules classes during working hours. The Carrier admits that it has held such classes during working hours, but alleges that this was the exception rather than the rule; and was only done for the convenience .of the conducting officer. The Carrier cites the statements of several of its employees to verify that the normal practice is to hold rules classes at times other than normal working hours. The Carrier maintains that even if some classes were held during working hours, that practice is neither uniform nor systemwide.
 The position of the organization is that Claimants are entitled to compensation for attending the rules class during non-working hours. The Organization first contends that Claimants were following instructions from the Carrier and therefore should be paid since they were required to attend the class in question.
 The organization further contends that the Carrier's past practice has been to pay employees for attending rules classes. The Organization maintains that it is unfair and arbitrary for Carrier to pay some employees for attending classes and refuse to pay others for attending similar classes. The Organization asserts that this constitutes a discriminatory practice and should not be allowed.
 A review of the applicable contract provisions compels the conclusion that the Organization's Claim must be denied.
 The Carrier has established that the rules class in question was for the mutual benefit of Carrier and Claimants. The Federal regulation cited by Carrier clearly indicates

                        _ 3 _

                                              3U~rs~ -


that employees are required to be familiar with operating -
 rules. Therefore, it is not merely for Carrier's benefit
 that the classes are held, for without the classes employees

 would be uninstructed in the operating rules in violation -
 of Federal law. We agree with those awards cited by

 Carrier holding that the attendance of rules classes serves -
 a mutually beneficial purpose. Having determined that both
 parties benefit from the classes in question, we further
 find that, absent specific contractual mandates, compensation
 is not required for attendance of such classes. We agree
 with Third Division Award 3325 where the Board stated,

          "The purpose of the program is relevant and must be considered in each instance. If the

                                                          -


          training was for the purpose of qualifying an employee to retain his position (e.g., rules examination classes) or for the purpose of qualifying for promotion or for the purpose (among others) of learning new procedures we could not allow a claim for

          overtime compensation such as that requested -

          herein. Such programs are either for-the

          primary benefit of the employe or mutually

          advantageous to Carrier and employes . . . ."


      The Board further finds that the Agreement does not con- -

template compensation for the attendance of rules classes.
 Rule 24(a), concerning overtime, specifically requires payment
 for "time worked". Similarly,- -Rule 28, concerning calls to
 perform work, specifically allows payment only when employees
 are called to "perform work". In the present case, we do not
 find that the attendance of rules classes constitutes "work"
 as contemplated by those Rules. We agree with those awards
 cited by Carrier holding that attendance of class does not
 equal "work" or "service". As stated earlier, since these classes
 ' PLB No. 3445
 AWARD N0. 28
 CASE N0. 28
 are beneficially instructive to Claimants, we do not find them
 to constitute "work" as contemplated by the Agreement.
 Finally, with regard to Carrier's past practice, we find that carrier has established that its normal procedure is to

 hold the classes at times other than normal working hours. In'
 order to establish past practice, the Organization needs to
 show a uniform or system-wide practice, which it has failed
 to do. We find that the Carrier has adequately demonstrated
 that no consistent past practice regarding on-duty classes
 existed.

 AWARD:

      Claim denied.


                          Neutral Member


                          harrier be


                          Orga ization Member


Date: /~131,~5

 - 5 -