PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 5606
PARTIES) BROTHERHOOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
) DIVISION OF THE INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
TO )
DISPUTE ) SPRINGFIELD TERMINAL RAILWAY COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
1. The Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed and refused to
allow Zone A Construction Crew #2720 members Brent C.
Randall, Jr., Ray L. Douglass and Brian S. Miles and Zone A
Brush Cutting Crew #2732 members Steven R. Richard and
William G. Grass per diem allowance for Saturday, July 24, 2004,
when they were called and used to perform overtime service at a
derailment on the Bucksport Branch.
2. As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, the
Claimants listed in Part (1) shall each be allowed $31.50 and the
$1.25 water allowance listed in Article 27 of the Agreement.
(Carrier File MW-04-39)
FINDINGS:
The Board, after hearing upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that the
parties herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor
Act, as amended; this Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and,
the parties were given due notice of hearing thereon.
The question at issue which the Board is called upon to determine from the record
as presented on the property is whether the Claimants, employees assigned to
positions on Production Crews, are entitled to the per diem allowance that is
contained in Paragraph 27.13 of Article 27 of the current Agreement for work
performed on Saturday, July 24, 2004.
Paragraph 27.13 of the Rules Agreement reads as follows:
Employees assigned to positions on Production Crews will be allowed
per diem expenses each day worked for, meals, lodging and travel as
follows:
January 1, 2003 $30.50
Page I
PLB No. 5606
AWARD NO. 48
CASE NO. 48
January 1, 2004 $31.50
January 1, 2005 $32.50
January 1, 2006 $33.75
January 1, 2007 $35.00
January 1, 2008 $36.50
* In addition to the per diem rates indicated above, Production per
diem crews will be allowed an additional $1.25 payment per day for
water.
There is no dispute concerning the fact that Claimants were assigned to positions on
Production Crews that have scheduled work weeks that run from Monday through
Friday, with Saturday and Sunday as designated rest days.
On Saturday, July 24, 2004, and again on Sunday, July 25, 2004, both scheduled
rest days for the Production Crew assignments held by Claimants, they were called
to perform work involving the repair of track damaged in a derailment earlier that
week.
The Carrier says that although the per diem payment was allowed for Sunday, July
25, 2004, that it was done in error.
It is the position of the Carrier that the work for which Claimants were called to
perform on their rest days was entirely unrelated to the character or nature of work
performed by Production Crew positions. It says the Claimants were called out and
used to supplement the two-member Bucksport I&R and Maintenance Crew so as to
complete the track repair work in a timely manner. The Carrier thus maintains
that Claimants performed work involving an emergency situation, a derailment, and
not work related to their Production Crew positions. It says that had this been
planned overtime, rest day, or holiday work which was a continuation of a work
project of a specialized nature, such as tie and surface, rail laying, construction,
clean up, etc., then the nearest specialized Production Crew would have been used
and paid per diem expenses.
In the opinion of the Board, since argument of record was only advanced as
involving application of Paragraph 27.13, supra, we must here restrict our findings
to a consideration of that particular provision of the Rules Agreement. In this
respect, the Board finds that while it may be that the work at issue arose out of an
emergency or derailment situation, there is nothing in the language of Paragraph
27.13 to suggest that payment of the per diem allowance does not apply account the
presence of such a circumstance. This rule, standing alone, prescribes, in simple
and clear language, that an employee assigned to a position on a Production Crew
will be allowed per diem expenses for "each day worked, for meals, lodging, and
travel." Standing alone, this contract language may not be read, as the Carrier
Page 2
PLB No. 5606
AWARD NO. 48
CASE NO. 48
contends, to have application only "while performing Production Crew work in
accordance with their regular shift."
Certainly, the above conclusion might well have differed if the record was to have
shown what the Claimants were, in fact, told when called to report for the work at
issue; whether they were told that they would be reimbursed for meals, lodging and
transportation; whether the location of the work called for involved Claimant
expenses associated with lodging and travel; the nature of the work performed; the
reason Claimants were called rather than employees holding regular Trackmen
positions; how, given the fact the derailment occurred earlier in the workweek, the
work involved differed from project work; and, a showing of past practice as to how
the contract language has previously been applied when employees assigned to
Production Crews were called for what the Carrier offers as work not involving
project work of a specific nature.
In the particular circumstances of record, the Board will hold that the claim here
before the Board be sustained.
Lastly, the Board will note that the record shows William G. Grass not to be a
proper Claimant as he did not work on July 24, 2004. Further, since the record
reveals that Claimant Steven R. Richard was already paid the per diem allowance
for Saturday, July 24, 2004, he is not entitled to further payment for that date.
AWARD:
Claim sustained.
Robert E. Peterson
Chair & Neutral Member
Anthony F. Lomanto
Carrier Member
~r
-,-`:77't
Stuart A. Hulburt,
Organization Member
North Billerica,
Dated '> ,z'~
Page 3