PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 4979
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
and
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
AWARD NO. 21
Case No. 21
System Docket No. BMWE-TC-166
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
Claim in favor of H. Jorge, SS #027-42-9012, for
seven (7) hours' double time pay because of denial of
opportunity to work overtime.
FINDINGS
Involved in this dispute is whether or not the Carrier has the
right to relieve an employee after working 16 consecutive hours by
assigning another qualified, available employee. In this instance,
the Claimant was a Foreman (Flagman) assigned to flagging duty for
a period of 16 hours. He was relieved by another employee, who
worked for an additional seven hours on the assignment.
Rule H, OVERTIME, reads in pertinent part as follows:
1. Time worked preceding or following and
continuous with the employe's assignment or regular
eight-hour work periods shall be computed on an actual
minute basis and paid for at the time and one-half rate,
. ya~q-ai
with double time on an actual minute basis after sixteen
(16) hours of work in any twenty-four hour period
(computed from the starting time of the employe's regular
shift), except that overtime shall automatically cease
and the pro rata rate shall apply at the starting time of
the employe's next regular assignment work period . . . .
4. When necessary to work employes under this Rule
the senior available qualified employes will be called
according to the following:
a. Preference to overtime work on a
regular work day which precedes or follows and
is continuous with a regular assignment shall
be to the senior available qualified employe
of the gang or the employe assigned to that
There is no doubt that this Rule contemplates the situation
under which any employee works in excess of 16 consecutive hours.
The parties acknowledge that this is the case, whether by necessity
in emergency or unavailability of a replacement or by choice. The
Board finds reasonable, however, the Carrier's assertion that an
employee's fitness for duty may well become impaired after such an
extended period of duty. The purpose of relieving an employee
cannot be said to be the
avoidance of
overtime work so much as it
is the assurance of safe and efficient operation. While Rule
does provide for double-time payment after 16 hours, it does not
thereby assert an employee's right to such work.
The Board finds Third Division Award No. 24707 (Scheinman)
consonant with this view. That Award stated as follows:
First, Rule 16 (a) [providing for double-time pay
after 16 hours] does not require that senior employes
must be given positions if they have worked sixteen hours
in a single day. Instead, it provides that if f employes
work more than sixteen hours, they are to be paid double
time for such work. Thus, Rule 16(a) does not mandate
that the position in question be given to Claimant.
-2-
L(a-7g-
Second, under the facts of this case, Carrier could
reasonably conclude that Claimant would not be
sufficiently rested to perform adequately as an
instructor with an inexperienced employee. Thus, Carrier
could deny the position in question to Claimant account
of his not being "sufficiently fit" to perform this
assignment.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
HERBERT,, Jr., Neutral Member
B.~ER, Employee Member
%Ell
W. H. ROB' SON, Jr, -tier member
NEW YORK, NY
DATED: