BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE )
OF WAY EMPLOYES )
AWARD NO. 9
and ) CASE NO. 9
BNSF 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
compensate Mr. B. L. Saylor at the section foreman's rate for all time
and services rendered beginning August 18,1999 and continuing
through August 29,1999 (System File T-D-1861-11/11-99-0520 BNR).
(2) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above,
Claimant Saylor shall now be compensated for the difference in rates
of pay between that which he received and that of foreman for all time
worked beginning August 18, 1999 and continuing through August 29,
1999:'
FINDINGS:
Public Law Board No. 6538, upon the whole record and all the evidence,
finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act, as amended; that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
herein; and that the parties to the dispute were given due notice of the hearing and
did participate therein.
This claim alleges that, during the period August 18 though August 29,1999,
Claimant, who was assigned as a Sectionman, was directed to perform the duties of
the vacationing section Foreman. The claim seeks payment at the Foreman's rate of
pay for all time worked during this period, in accordance with Rule 44, which
states:
An employe assigned by proper authority to perform service on a higher
rated position for one (1) hour or more shall be paid the higher rate for the
time assigned thereto; except that when the time so engaged exceeds four (4)
hours in one day will be allowed the higher rate for the entire day. The rate
of pay of an employe will not be reduced when temporarily assigned by
proper authority to a lower rated position.
P.L.B. No. 6538 Case No. 9
Page 2 Award No. 9
During the handling of the claim on the property, the Organization
submitted a statement from the Claimant which states that he directed the work of
the Redfield section when the Foreman was on vacation but he did not receive the
Foreman's rate of pay. The Organization submits that Claimant is entitled to be
compensated for performing Foreman duties during the time period in question and
therefore the claim must be sustained.
Carrier initially responded to the claim by offering to settle the matter for
the difference in pay between the section Foreman and Sectionman. The
Organization rejected the offer because the Carrier's offer to settle was made on a
nonreferable basis. In subsequent correspondence, the Carrier took the position
that the Organization had not met its burden of proof and that no violation of the
Agreement took place.
The Board concludes that the Organization has established a violation of the
Agreement in the instant case. Carrier contended during claims handling that
August 28 and August 29,1999 were rest days on which Claimant did not perform
any service for the Carrier. The Organization did not refute that statement.
Accordingly, the claim shall be sustained on that basis. Carrier is directed to
compensate the Claimant for the difference in pay between a section Foreman and a
Sectionman, including hours worked at both the straight time and overtime rates of
pay, during the period August 18 through August 27,1999.
AWARD
Claim sustained as set forth in the Findings.
ANN S. KENIS, Neutral Member
Carrier Member Organiza on Member
William A. Osborn Roy C. Robinson
Dated this AAday of J~e 2007.
2