worked four ten (10) hour days from Monday through Thursday, with Friday, Saturday and Sunday observed as rest days. Their regular working hours were from 6:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. inclusive of a 30 minute meal period that was observed from 11:30 a.m. until noon. On Wednesday, March 19, 2003 these gangs continued working until 8:00 p.m. without being afforded another meal period.
The correspondence on the property raises similar positions as those asserted by the parties, and set forth, in Board Award No. 9. In summary the Organization asserted that Claimants were entitled to a second meal period at 6:00 p.m., worked 3 hours overtime on the claim date, and that Carrier is responsible for two hours of penalty pay for each Claimant for failure to give them a subsequent meal period. Carrier indicated that employees confirmed the accuracy of their time and payroll records by signing them, and that it is not obligated to give a second meal period to Claimants since they were released within three hours of their assigned quitting time.
The arguments of the parties with respect to the proper interpretation of Rule 32(e)(1) and (6) are set forth fully in Award No. 9 and will not be repeated herein. The issue raised in this case - whether Claimants are entitled to penalty pay from the sixth hour after their regularly scheduled meal period until they are released from work when working 3 hours of overtime continuous with their regular schedule - involves the same interpretation of Rule 32(e)(1) as the Board undertook in Award No. 9. A careful review of the record convinces the Board that its interpretation of Rule 32(e)(1) and (6) is equally applicable to the facts of this case, and does not support the Organization's position that Claimants are entitled to penalty pay under Rule 32(e)(6) for the overtime
hours worked on March 19, 2003, since they were all released from work within three hours of their assigned quitting time.
In Award No. 9 the Board determined that Rule 32(e)(1), as written, and consistent with its past application, provides an exception to the general requirement that Carrier must furnish meal periods every 6 hours for employees working in continuous overtime service who are released from work within 3 hours of their assigned quitting time, and that such "assigned quitting time" applied to the normal schedule of a gang working over 8 hours/day pursuant to Rule 40. We rejected the Organization's argument that Rule 32(e)(6) is a separate monetary obligation that arises independently if Carrier chooses not to provide a meal period during that 3 hour overtime service under Rule 32(e)(1), finding that such interpretation would negate the operation of the specific language adopted by the parties to create an exception to the provision of a subsequent meal period in Rule 32(e)(1).
Additionally, the Board concluded that the entitlement to a meal period at a specific time must exist prior to the payment of penalty pay for its denial under Rule 32(e)(6). Since we found that the second sentence of Rule 32(e)(1) negates such entitlement for employees working overtime who are released within 3 hours of their assigned quitting time, which is the situation with Claimants herein, we must reject their entitlement to the penalty pay sought by this claim.