PUBLIC LAW BOARD 5564
In theMatter of Arbitration between:
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
and
In theMatter of Arbitration between:
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
and
Case No. 61
Award No. 61
THE OR.GANI.ZATION'S STATl:MENT OF THE CLAIM
This Decision resolves the Organization's claim as foJlows:
The Carrier violated the Agreement when it instructed empfoyes on the Rock tsland District to cease performing o rtime sn removal work on February 21, 2013 for the purpose of ab$0rbing overtime (System File C130227/08-21..S52 NRC).
As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part 1 above, Claimants p, Linstrot, G. Pone». D. Gautgan S. Engel, R.VanMeter,
J. T. Smith, J. Johnston, F. Kmie . J. Ramirez, S. Espinosa, J. H. Smith, T. Morris, J. Martinez, M. Cornejo, L Jones, J. Pulido, J. Zuniga, J. Rodriguez; J.Alvarez,D. Bryant, J.Alcantar, R. Ballard, V. Gonzalez, J. Esparza. H.. Munoz, R. Garcia, M. Fernandez, R Almanza, A Ramire?, J. GaJderon, H, Ewing, o. Villagomez. T. Wisniewskif T. Woody, A Perez, J. Duran Cunigan, M. Diaz, J.
Demonte, J. Lara, J. Gayton, F. Sanchez, N. Fulbright, M. Zavala, M. Szafko, F. Ochoa, L. Draine, R. Guzman, .. Zavala, J. Lopez, T. Moreno, J. Guerrero, D. Matthews, J. Solis, H. Qulro9a, M. Rangel,
J. Campos and K. Prince shall each now be compensated two and one-half (2.5) hours at their respe.ctive double time rates of pay
PLB6564
CaseNo e1 AwardNO; 61
Based orttherecord developed by the Organization andthe Carrier, this Pubnc Law 89ard (Board) finds the Partieshereintobe a Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the RaiJway L.13bor Act, a$ amended, andthatthi$ Board ht$Jurisdiction over the Parties and the dl$pute .
ThisdisputeIsbetween theBrotherhood ofMafhtenance of Way Employes Division
IBT Ran Conference (BMWE or Organization) and the Northeast .Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation (Metra orCarrier) {collectively the·Parties). The dl ute arises out of BMWE's claim that Metra violated the Parties' Agreement Rule 1S(a:), (c) arid
{I).
On February 27, 2013, thli 58 Claimants from the engineering Department, Rock Island District, werecalled to overtime service for snow andiceremoval as there$ulf of a winter-weatheremergency. The Claimants wor ed overtime intc:> their regular 7':00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m, shifts, Pursuant to Agreement Rule 18, they received double time pay for the time they worked into their shift, At 1:OO p.m.1 the Carrier released the Claimants. The Claimants were paid for the remainder of their shifts with 2.5 hours straight time pay.
OnApril 23, 2013. BMWEsubmitted a claimonbehalf ofthe 58 Claimants assertinf Mettaviolated Agreement Rule 18(a), (o)and {I} byreleasing the Claimants toabsorb over overtime. As temEKly, BMWE requested that the Cfaimants be oompensated for the 2.5 hours release time at thedouole time pay. BMWI: asserted that only Rock Island District employees on double time werereleased early to absorb overtime.
On June 21, 2013l Metra denied the claim asserting that the winter weather
emergency had ended 1:OO p.m, Metra asserted that straight time pay for the remainder of the Claimants' shift was consistent with Agreement Rule ta and past practice.
On August 9, 2013, BMWE appealed the claim denial. BMWE'sappeal reiterated the claim that: the Claimants should have been allowed to finish their.shifts at thedouble time pay; other employees had rematned on duty for their fullshifts with double time pay;. andthe Carrier released the Claimants to absorb overtime.
PLB5564
Case No. 61
Award No. 61
On September 27, 2013, Metra responded stating that BMWE had not met its burden to prove an Agreement Rule violation; BMWE did not provide evidence to contradict the earlier claim denial; and the claim for 2.5 hours double time pay was excessive because the Claimants were paid 2.5 hours straight time pay for the remainder of their shifts.
On August 13, 2014, the claim was conferenced without resolution.
The claim was,not resolved onproperty. Thereafter, the dispute was docketed with this Board for adjudication.
The applicable work rules and policies provide:
RULE 18. OVERTIME. {a} Time worked following and continuous with the regular eight {8) hour work period shalJ be computed on the actual minute basis andpaid for at the lime and one-half rates, with double: time computed on the actual minute basis after sixteen (16) continuous hours of work in any twenty-four (24) hour period computed from starting time of the employee's regular shift.
* * *
For time worked in excess of sixteen (16) hours following the beginning of the employee's regular starting time, the double-time rate will app.ly until the employee is released for at least ten (10) hours.
* *
Employees willnot be required to suspend work during their regularly assigned work period for the purpose of absorbing overtime.
For the Board to sustain BMWE's claim, the Organization must prove that on February 27, 2013, Metra released the Claimants withtheintentto absorb double time pay. In this regard, the record developed on property establishes that BMWE asserted that only
PLB5564
Case No. 61
Award No. 61
Rock Island District employees were released before the end of their shifts. fnresponse, Metra asserted that: theemergency weather event had ended; other districts hadheavier snow accumulations than the Rock Island District delaying the affected employees' release; the Claimants were properly paid through the end of their shifts; and the early rel ase ptocess has been past practiee for more than 20 years.
The burden of proof rests on BMWE. It is a well established and an axiomatic principle reflected in NRABawards that the Organization mustnot onlyciterules which the Carrier allegedly violated. but also must present the proof necessary to sustain a Board findingthattherulewas violated.. In this dispute, BMWPs allegations offact alone do not constitute probative, material proof tosupport afinding.that Metra violafed Agreement Rule t8 (a), (c) and (i).
For these reasons, the Board finds that BMWE has failed toprove intheonproperty record thatthe Carrier released the Cl.aiman.ts to absorb overtime. Therefore, Board finds the claim must be denied.
BMWE's·claim isdenied.
Neutral Member: Sean J:,bg;;:sci:
Sean J. Rogers & Associates, LLC·
L.eonardtown,.Maryland
December21, 2016,
, PLB5564
Case No: 61 Award No.61