PUBLIC LAW BOARD NUMBER 3932
Award Number: 9
Case Number: 9
PARTIES TO DISPUTE
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
and
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
"This claim is on behalf of the employees
listed for unfair enforcement of Rule 52.
On March 28 and 29, 1984 the members of 6182
(listed) were advised to work in the rain or
go home, while T. Lynch, welder in 6182 was
allowed to complete the day performing
miscellaneous duties.
In light of this violation of Rule 52, I am
requesting 8 hours at the pro rata rate for
the affected employees. Please advise if
this claim will be honored and the pay period
in which it will be compensated.
3/28/84 3/29/85
Foreman M. J. Holland 4 hours 4 hours
#172-44-0242
T.D. A. Berger 4 hours 4 hours
#177-48-3240
T.D. M. Stankiwiz 4 hours 4 hours
#178-50-5532
Trackman A. N. Williams 4 hours 4 hours
#193-26-4433
Trackman A. L. Williams 4 hours 4 hours
#193-48-8284
Trackman R. Cannon 4 hours 4 hours
#176-28-7124
Trackman B. Simbala 4 hours 4 hours
#168-44-3947
393a ~
Trackman R. Cristobal 4 hours 4 hours
#199-28-1131
Trackman L. Brown 4 hours 4 hours
#203-46-2418
Trackman H. H. Nguyen 4 hours 4 hours
#586-46-8643"
FINDINGS
By letter dated April 20, 1984, the organization filed claim
on behalf of the Claimants seeking compensation contending that
Carrier violated Rule 52 of the Agreement on March 28 and 29,
1984, when it allowed a member of the Claimants gang to remain on
duty while advising the Claimants that they could work in the
rain or go home.
The issue to be decided in this dispute is whether Carrier
violated Rule 52 on the dates in question by allowing one
employee to complete service while advising other employees to
either work or return home.
The position of the Organization is that Carrier violated
Rule 52 on the dates in question through its arbitrary and
discriminatory treatment of the Claimants. The Organization
initially asserts that Carrier violated Rule 52 by failing to
receive proper authorization to send the Claimants home due to
inclement weather. The Organization maintains that without such
a determination by the Foreman it was improper for Carrier to
advise-the Claimants that they could go home.
PLB 3932 - Award No. 9
The organization further argues that Carrier's allowing one
of the members of the Claimants gang (T. Lynch) to remain on duty
while sending the Claimants home constituted discriminatory
treatment in violation of Rule 52. The Organization contends
that the eight hours of compensation afforded Lynch by Carrier is
discriminatory since the Claimants were only offered four hours'
compensation on the dates in .question.
The position of the Carrier is that the Organization has
failed to sustain its burden of proof regarding the claims
presented.
Carrier argues that Rule 52 was erroneously applied in the
present case, since the Claimants were merely advised to either
work or go home and were not required to leave work due to
inclement weather. Carrier admits that the rule was applied on
the dates in question, but argues that the voluntary nature of
the Claimants' decision indicated that the rule was used in
error. Carrier argues, however, that since Rule 52 was applied,
there is no basis for any compensation beyond the four hours
allotted under the rule. Carrier maintains that Rule 52 required
that only four hours' compensation be paid when work is called
off due to inclement weather. Carrier argues that the Claimants
could have been compensated for eight hours if they decided to
3g
3a
-9
remain on duty by choice-. Carrier therefore argues that the
Claimants were not discriminated against in relation to Lynch,
since all parties had an opportunity to work a full day. Carrier
argues further that Lynch was at a different location performing
different work, and was therefore not singled out for special
treatment.
After review of the record, the Board finds that the
organization's claim must be denied. This case presents similar
facts to those before this Board in Cases 7 and 8. We find that
the organization has failed in all of these cases to establish
any violation of Rule 52.
Since the Organization concedes the applicability of Rule 52
to the present dispute, we need not discuss that rule's disputed
application. Under Rule 92, it is clear that the Claimants
properly received the four hours' compensation for each date in
question. While a question exists as to the Claimants'
entitlement to the four hours' compensation, given the voluntary
nature of their decision to leave work, that issue is not before
this Board. The only issue before us is whether the Claimants
are entitled to eight hours' compensation under Rule 52 for the
dates in question. The only basis for the compensation requestedis that the Claimants were treated in a discriminatory manner
vis-a-vis Lynch. However, given the fact that the Claimants
PLB 3932 - Award No. 9
could have elected to remain on duty and collect eight hours'
compensation, we do not find that they were arbitrarily denied
the additional four hours' compensation. If Carrier had ordered
the Claimants to go home while retaining Lynch, this case might
reach a different result. However, it is undisputed that the
Claimants elected to leave work and accept four hours'
compensation under Rule 52. Therefore, we cannot find the
Claimants eligible for. any compensation beyond that provided for
in Rule 52.
AWARD
Claim denied.
/lNeutral Member;'
n
Carrier member
j
us