PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 5244
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES )
Case No. 23
and )
Award No. 18
NORTHEAST ILLINOIS REGIONAL COMMUTER )
RAILROAD CORPORATION (A PUBLIC CORPORATION) )
Martin H. Malin, Chairman & Neutral Member
R.C. Robinson, Organization Member
J.S. Morse, Carrier Member
Hearing Date: January 28, 1994
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. That Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed
and refused to compensate Water Service Mechanic J. L.
Randolph at his double time rate of pay for service
performed on April 14, 1992.
2. As a consequence of the violation referred to in
Part (1) above, Claimant J. L. Randolph shall be
compensated at his double time rate of pay in
compliance with Rule 18(c), i.e., for time worked in
excess of sixteen (16) hours following the beginning of
his regular starting time until released for at least
ten (10) hours.
FINDINGS:
Public Law Board No. 5244, upon the whole record and
all of the evidence, finds and holds that Employee and
Carrier are employee and carrier within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act, as amended; and, that the Board has
jurisdiction over the dispute herein; and, that the parties
to the dispute were given due notice of the hearing thereon
and did participate therein.
On April 13, 1992, Claimant worked his regular eighthour shift at the Western Avenue Yard. He then went to the
Randolph Street Station, where he worked sandbagging and
pumping flood water from the station. Claimant left the
Randolph Street Station at 11 p.m.
Claimant was paid for working until 11:30 p.m. This
amounted to eight hours at time and one-half. Claimant
6a (1Y -
2
alleges that he actually worked until 11:45 p.m. He
maintains that he returned to Western Avenue at 11:15 or
11:20 p.m. and worked until 11:45 p.m. putting equipment
away. Furthermore, Claimant contends that he did not
receive a meal break during the second eight hours that he
worked on April 13, and should be able to add the twentyminute meal break which he should have been provided to his
total time worked on April 13. Either the addition of the
meal break or the correction of Claimant's departure time to
11:45 would place Claimant into double-time and trigger Rule
18(C).
Carrier contends that Claimant was paid for eight hours
of straight time and eight hours of time and a-half and
never entered double-time on April 13. Carrier contends
that Claimant's supervisor saw Claimant at Western Avenue at
11:15 p.m. on April 13, advised Claimant that he would be
allowed fifteen minutes to put equipment away and further
advised Claimant that he could not increase his time worked
by the missed meal break to get into double-time. Carrier
also raises procedural objections to Claimant's contention
based on the missed meal period.
The Board recognizes that Carrier has offered no
statements from Claimant's supervisor or other documentation
in support of its position. Carrier, however, is not
raising any type of affirmative defense. The burden of
proving the instant claim rests with Claimant. The record
on the property contains an unsigned, undated, hand-printed
statement in Claimant's name, supporting Claimant's version
of the facts. Claimant did not file a claim for
compensation for the period from 11:30 p.m. through 11:45
p.m. Claimant also did not file a claim for compensation
for the missed meal break. The Board concludes that
Claimant failed to carry his burden of proving that he
rendered compensated service beyond 16 hours on April 13,
1992.
AWARD
Claim denied
Martin H. Malin, Chairman
J. S. orse R. . o i son,
Carrier Member Organization Member
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, February 28, 1994.