l'IJBLIC LAW BOARD NO.7877
Brotherhood of Ma.intcoance of \Vay )
Employe., Division - lBT Rail )
Conference: )
)
aud )
)
BNSFR.'1ilway Company )
AWA.lill NO. 17
CASEN0.17
.'<RA R - 00003-150324
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: CL,im of theSystem Com mittee of tbe l!rothcrhood rhat:
The Carri.er violated tbe eemc nt when it .scheduled a Track Sul:><lcpartmtnl truck driver position (#15172)toa '<>r k week" 'ith rc t daysofother than Saturday and Sundal' bt-ginning .Janua ry 10, 2014 ao.d continuing (Sy!)-etm FiJe S-P-1838-
G/H -14--0155 Rl\'R).
The Carrier violated the Ag.rcc.ment when it scheduled a TruckSubdepa.rtmcnt truckdrive.r pm;ition (#15 f 7 J) to a work week withrtSt da:y:,. of other than .s3 tur da y
and S und ya h i.o.ning.JanuJ:ttY 1 0, 2014 and <..'O.otinuing(S:p•t c m File S-P-1839-
G/ U -14-0l56).
( 3 ) The- Carrie,r i ola:tl-d tbe Agreement when itschedule.'(! a Track Subdcpa11weut tn:ttk driver posWon (#15171) (0 a n•ork weekwith n. tdaysofother than Saturda) ' and S u nday bfltinning January 10, 2014 and C.'OUtin uing (System File S-P-1840-
G/!l -14--01S7) .
As a co n. cqucnce of the violation reft rrcd to in Part ( I) ahQv.lD) ' e mpk,yc
as.signed to said positio n shal•l ... rN:ei\'t eighthours payat the timeandont'-half ratefor (·.ach and every .Satunby worked commencing .l;11r:n>1ry 10 2014 (th.c <lute
the bids close). \ e further i:equ t that anytruckdriver 111 sigoed to tbi-. po itiol;l r eceive eight hoursstn.ig.ht time pay for c:.•ach and every Monday> wh e n they arc
1
1
required to !'lu peod wo:rk, commencing January 10 2014. Thi.,; d ai.r:o is to CObt:inuc
u ntil such timeas the posi1ion is properly a..'ls ig.ned with Saturday aod Sunday resl
days.'
Asa cousequtnL"C oft he.vio la tio n referred to in Part (2) above, any c mp.loye a.,;si.goed to s ai J position sba JI; . .. r ecfl ve eight hours p:ty at the timeao.d one--half
ra te for each and every Su,ufay worked cotnmcncing Janua:ry 10, 2014 (thedate the hidsclose). \Ve further reqocst thatany(sic)assignt-d to this position receive e.igbt hnursstraight lime pay for each und C\ 'Cl) ' .Friday, when they are required to
s;u:-.peod "' Or k, commencing Jan ua ry 10, 2014. Tbisd aimis to continue. until such. ti me as the position iS, properly assi ncd withSaturday and Suoday rest day.,;.'
A a conseq uence of the violation rd ct rcd to in Part (3)above a11y employe
assigned to s2id position shaU ' . .. receive eight houn. pay:tt the time:lnd o.oe-ba.lf
!'LIi No. 71,77
Case No. 17
Award No. 17
rate fol'.' each Saturday and Sundayworked commencing J anuary JO, 2014t(he date the bidsclose). \Vefurther request that any truckdm•er ul>.Signed to thi.s position rtccivc eight hoursstraig_ht time pay for each and c,:ery Tuesday and Wednesday, when they arc required losuspend wqrk, commencing January 10,2014.Thi -; claim is to cootinuc untilsuch timeas the fH>:,;;itfon is properly assigned with Saturday and
Su.uday rest day .1
Ol'!NION OF llOARJ):
Public Law Board No.7877, u.pon th e. whole recol"d and aU the cvidcoce., find.Ii th:tt the parties herein are Carrier at1d F.mployees within the ntt.".llning of lhc R.aih ,·ay Labor Act, as amcruJcd; that theBoard has jurisdiction ove.r the dispu.te herein; .tnd that the parties to th. edisputewe.re given due notice of the hc:1ring and did particip:ttc therein.
In renderingour find.lo.gs, tht Roud baswn.sidered only the ar.,itn("nts aod evidence raised during the.on-property h.aodling of thi,i claim.
Oo or about January f1 2014, Currieradvertised se,'e.raJT naek Subd epa rl meot tru<"k ddver pos;itioru as seven day week positiow '"'ilh restdaJ'Sother than Saturd3y :tnd Suuduy. Thereis nodispute th.at the- n rn ' pmdtions bad lhc s:ulle beadqunters and job duties 3$ they bad hi torkally m:tintain ed. Therei.s also nodis. pttte that thepositions previously worked a five day a week schedule with Saturday and Sunday n: st days.
TheO rganization tlled th..-ec separated imswhkb lHt•,t hcen consolidated herein. The dahnsa$.$<:rf that the C:trrier improperly <"rc tc:d thesepositions ith rest cbysother th.:tn SanmJay and s·unday. The Orgao.iz..1tion conteods that th<·.cm.sitious a re. in fact
a:o. igned as rive (5) days per week and are not tiUed or workingon ,1. sevt,n (7) day per week bnsis. Aec,rr-di.o.g t<> th<: Org u1i:t.ation. the C.trrier vfol.1ted th <.:(.'Ontrollin_g Agreement by ccqniring the Claimn.tib to ,,..ork po.'>i tio us assigned withres1da,Ysother than.Saturday antl Suoda.y .fiurt ber 1 the O q; a nization as.'>crts that Carrier improperly required Chtimaots to Sllspcn.d servic:. on one of theirwork,\'tC-k d:iys.. Jn support ofits posilion, tbe Organiza tion reli oo Rule 24, wb.ich provides in relC'·'\'ant pal't:
Rlll. E 24. l'ORTYHOUR WORK WY.EK
1
1
Subject to tbe exec-prions c.onu,jncd in this Agrccmcot, a work weekof forty (40) hours, coosisting uf five(5) da , ofeJgbt (8) hourscach ll'ith two(2) consecutive daysoff in eacbstven (7)is btrt-hy t-.si!ibllshed . The wo.rk wttks m:ty be
stagg.en-d io.accor<l.ance with the Company's operational rtq uircmcnts. So far as
practicable the daysoffsh:dl beSacu rd ::iy :tnd Su:nda.y. This work week..ntlt is subject w the pro,isions whi.ch fotJo"·'
NOTE: The.e:q,rcss,ion.s ' positio11s' :.nd 'work' refor toseniccs, duties, or
2
PLB No. 7877
Ca.st No. 17
Award No. 17
<Jperations oec sacy• to be performed the spedfied number of days per weeJ..i
aod not to the workweek of individual empJoyee.,c;.
F h 1 e-da y Positions- Oupositions the dories of which canr eas. on.ab ly he metin fiv. e(5) da s, thedaJ·s off lliJf beSaturday and Su.nday.
Si - x.day Po i tious - \Vb.ere. the natureof the workis such that c.mplo yts n· i· l1be ueedcd sb:( 6 ) Ja ys e.ac::b week, the 1·estda ·s ill beeither Saturday andSunday, or Sunduy and Monday.
Seven- d ya Positions - 011po.. ition$ wbida :ue filledse"\·-t n (7) days per weeka ny
two (2)c onsecutive da)' S may be the restdays nitb thepresumption in f:wor of Satw-day and Sunday.
Regular Relief Assignments
(I). A ll po ible re·guJar relief :tS.Signmcnts with five (5) days of"'O r k and tl'vo
(2) co1t-.ccutiYe rc::o-t d a ys will be e-51h1blished to d o the work nec sary on
rest da ·!'> of assig · n m.en ts in ix (6) or .s.even (7) day st f'\·il 'C or
ct>mbinatioos t.htt-C()f, or to perform relief work on certain daysand$U (h'. lypcs ofo t her work on otbtr daysas may be assigned. Relief :1ssignmcnts
w ilJ not be rt--quired to have. five (5) da)'s t>f work per ·week.
(2 ) A. « ; go wenL for regularrelief positio11s may ondiffcrtnt d•ys include different Shtrdng tilnc . duties and work focations for cmploycs of the. sarueclassin thes:u:ue c.o.iori ty d i.stri c.t , J>ro vid ed Ibey takt thest2rting time, duties and work location.or; o f the emplc>ye or employes"' hom they
a relieving.
De,,
fa tion from fonday-Friday \ Vcf.k - Ir in positions or lvork cxtendi'ng overa
period of five(5) days per wt.-ck an opcratio11aJ problem arises which the t:o'lnJlany contends c.1nno1 be met under the pr wis \ons of Section Oof this rule, and requires that someofsuch cmploycs work T uesday throu,g.b Saturday instead of Mondya throughF riday , and the -t ln ployes cuntc.nd the contrary and iftbe parties fail to
a gre.e thereon, then if the company nevertheless ptd suc.b l:l$!Sig:omenL into eff ec, t dispute O.l3Y be p ro cess ed as a gri e v u ncc 01 · daim under this Agreement.
lhe
The Orgnni:1.atiou as.-.crts thal Rule24(A) and (D)an: clear and unamb gi uou s in providing fol"Salurcby a11d Sun.day a.-. rest dayswbf..n positions haveduties which c3u reaso11ahly be met in five day,;.. C onsis tc .o t with this Agreewt nt l:tnguagl ·, the pos ir ion :o; established herein have hishlricaJJy been assigned u five-day workweek with Saturday aod Sun day a.-. rest days. The Orga.njzation argu.es tltat Carrier ha.or; o.ot shown any cban cin op cr .11i ou:d l'J t td to buJletin these pMitions withotbtr tJ,an Saturday and Sunday:ts rest
PLBNo. 7877
Case No.17
AwardNo. 17
<1:tys nor ha.-. Carrier e.stabli.shc-d that the duth.-s of these posific·>o!( c:umot be met in fi\-'C days. In uch 3 circwustane-e, the OrganiZ.lltion points to the mi.ny precedent award.-; on thissubject which ba,'t.condudcdthat Carrier cannot overcotnc the beavy pres(rmption tb:.tt positim:1s :).re to be assigned wo.rk ·eekscunsl-.tio.g of fivedays with.S3tnrday and
.Sunday as rescdays.See, J'LB 4014, Case.s 9, JO, If; SBA 1107, Award No. l (E ischen, 1999); Third Ui"i,ioo Awards 35564; 35805; 36055; 36722; 37049; 41561; PLB 7656,
Award 4 (Sn-ongn in, 2014).
In addition, the Organ ..».lioo contends that Rule.24(H) require C3rrier to contact the Organization and discuss 1he i•.:;:suc if an operational problem arises which cannot be. met under Ruic24(D). Noattempt by the Carrier wa.(; m:1dcto contact tl1c Orgaohation prior toimplementing tb.c positions at il;t.')oe. The Organiz:dion argues that the fir.st time the ma.Her was brought to ifsattentio·n ' a.s wb.en the posirions were posted for bullttin.
T.1:i response, Carder contt:ndsth:ditfully compliedwith the pro,isions of the
<:ontroUing.A".,l,"etmt nL h argues that Rule 24(F) rttogni:r.c..-. thatseven•day po.."Hiuns may be treated and any ·o consecutivt days m:t)' be the rest days. A sevcn·day assignment cao be <'Sl.ahlished wbe l:1$ in this case1thC'rt exists$CYeo days of w(>rk. Oo fiveof thoses.c,•c.o days, the workis ptrfon:ned by the regular (seven-day) position/gang, with the rt'uut.ining two t.1.ays ufwotk pedormcd byits bullecincd rc:gular relief cre:w in aL-cc.mhnce with Ruic.
24(G). Ruic 24allows it to slagger the workweeks of truc:-.kdriversso as to roaintain .seve:n day a week <.-o,·e ragt
Tht Carrier contends that thereis noagrttmcnt laogu.age in RuJe 24 ( F) nr {G) that require. it lo how:myope.rationaloced. Even if.such a howi.ngis necessary, hc1wc,·er, Carrier assenit that it bastheman:i crfo:l right to determine the efficient conduct orits business. Track ma inte.o.tnce issue$ require C:trrier to respond on a seven day per week bi,,sis. £qnaUyhnporui.nt, the fact th:u the:rcis c:-ovcragc &.$."i\gucd vqa tfay:s per week is
evidence in a.tit.I. of it:,;clf that thereisan opcr.1ti.onaJ need; ol.11cnvi!';c the Carrierwould imply payovcrrimc ratesfor occasionalwork in.stead of paying. an additional 40 bourSof straight time pay lo an additionaJ employee.
Carrier rccogohcs thatRuic.24(A)litnd (D) are a ppli <:.ablc . whc1.1 th.ereis a change in the work;veek siluatioo, wherea fivMty sigo.ment for opet-.ltional reasoos cannot be pcrforrue.d on a. Mnnd:ty through f,'r'iday ha.sll:i la thatsituario·n1 Carrierac.koowled es it would have to pron• operational uetd toschedule a cbau e in tht w6rk week and rest days. Here, the positions in question are regularsc\'e.n.-d:ty assignments rn tuvcr$even-day
!:>crvke requirements and their relief positions werecreated to relieve. the r<. t daysof tbe Senn-day assi_gnruents..Sir:ace tbe Carrier maydesignateseven days ofwork where there fa; scuch need, it is not required toinform the Organizution beforehand. In sup1>c)rt of it,; position, Carl'ier citesa lineofcases which have. rc·achcd the $:am.e c.ond usionio similar
factual circu.rustances. These prfor awards, iu <.:arricr's view, should he deeme.d. conn-oiling, in the instant c.ase. Sec,c.g Third Dhisiou Atrard 21428; PI.R 2960, Award 80 (Vernon, 1985) Appondix KSRA, Award Z3(O'llrion, 1977).
4
Case No. J7
Awud No. 17
The Board h:1s reviewed the considerabfc :ubitraJ prct.-cdent provided by the partil."$. tt is dear thatwearc oot o.penuingin uncharted waters. Notwithstanding the holdings in i1umc c:-arUe.r c--ase:s, upon which the Carrier relil , the better reasoned and major · view has adhered for decades to the principles set forth i.n Special Ro-ard of Adjuittmcot No. 1107, Aw:trd No.1 (F.i:-.c ben) l\ ' hen interpretin theForty Hour \\turk Rule:
Theseearly cases L'tid down the guiding principle, followed in all of the bctter re.asottcd cases decided in the l.asr 40 yea rs, that the l::tngu:tge a pp c.a d.ng in Rule 15(a) and (h) creates a rtbutfable presumption that exi$ting five-dayoperations t:1ffed by f)()io:it:ioos nith a Monday-.Frid1ty,,,.ork ,,:eek and Saturday-Sunday rest
daysshould not u.nilatera.lly Qe tbange.d to seven-day operations with otherthan S:ttu..1·day...und:1y nst days. ACarrierin\•l,king the language of Rulel7(a) and (d)
to a) t cr thisst:du quo and ju tify implen1cnlingsuch a change from five-day Mun.day through Fridayl_)Ositior:1s to seven-d a)' positionswith other than Saturday Sunday rest da.y$i bean the burden of rebutting that presumption by producing dear andconY'inciog C'\ideucc of necessity due to a material change of operational rt'qui.remen ts, i.e., a bona fideopcrntionaJ need to make the change.
Contrary to Car-ricr'.$ position, we arc persuaded th.at Rule24 cannot heproperly inttrpreted al this poiDtiu timea,;:rntbori7.ing the Cariier tounilatera lly abofo.:h historic fivl--day posit:iuns ::and to re-estah1i.sb them as ScH n-cfay positions sQas to a,·oid lh-e pl.:toi n.·adingof Ruic24. The Agreement is clear that». fo.oday tbro\J;h Friday eight hourpc.r daywork we-e.k i.s the contractually preferred schl'llu1e.Although deviation from the fonday throu·gh F'riday sc.bed ulc is p<:flllitted, Ruic 24(A) nevertheless requires a showing
that therea.re"c)pcratloo.a.J requircmcnt.s"which ncccssit:tte the chang e.:t.od, furthet, lb:d it
isnot"'practicable"tc., haveSaturday and Sunday n t days. Notably, the pr:esumption in
farnrof Saturday and Sundayl"f'.$1 d ys appJie!I: equidl,y tosc.weo-day et$itfons under H.uk
Thus, Car:r-ier' a.-.scrtion th;u iC nl-cd not establish 1tny cba.uge in optr::.tional requircm o.ts is inconsistent with the language of Rule 24 and tb.clonglineorCa$CS interpreting the Fotty Ifour '\\ 'ork Ruic wb.ich requireCarrier 10show operaciun:d necessity in order tochange a loog--es(ablished louday through Fdday five-day pmdtiQn
with S1uurday and .Sunday rt.";St daysso as to provideseven-day coYcragewith tt;i.:t d:1:ys ofhe'r tha,n Saturday a1tdSuncfay.
Carrier's alternative:trgll.Dlent is that track ma.inrenn:ntc issues and the 'Ju:cd for seven-day coverage rebut the prt.'suwptio:n in favor of the Monday through .Fl'iday
wo1k· v·.(-ckwitb restdaysonSaturday and Sunday. To. our view, bowc\'cr, that argument is equally problematic, for n.10 rc»sQns. First, thereis not.''lid e nce in the record tosupport the Carrier' s 1>ositfoo tbat t.here have beeo material modifications in conditions ,·hich justify a ch;tnge in work schedules th.at have hccn in existc-.tm: for d1..-c:1:des. The b urd-t n ,,,as on the Cntricr toestablish that point. In contrast to Third Division 36999, where Carriet
PLB.''fo. 7877
C:ase No.17
AwardN1). 1i
iutroduct.-d probativecirJdeuce tluu it was unable. to meetservice demands by the u. of overtime on weekends and l\' bcrc theduties of tbc positions could not nasonably bemeton aM· ond y through Frid::tysc hed ule, 110 substanti'"·c c\-·idenee wa.\ offered tosupport
Can-icrl s position in this case.
Second, raill"oa<lii:ag bas always been a 24n opt ratioo. Withoul ubsta ntfa tion to rebut the prcsu.mption of the j\ fo nday through Friday\\·orkweek l\·ith Sat urday and Sunday re,.;:t d ays , l\ ' e arc curopdJed to coocfode tbatwhat C:ii.r rl er is a tt e mptin .g to do is rearrange worksche·dulesof positions that werehistoric-ally assigned five Jay service
M onday through li ri day to .,;chedules th3t ue stillfive-da:y :t weekservfoc. but overlapping
thesepo itioos to provide sc\'eD day CO\'c rag e with rest d::.y. .s of other than Saturday and Sunda.v. The effect is to avoid the p.ayment of overtime on,,..t.-c,kends. lt has bcco
consistently c:!,lablished, however, that avoidi:tncc of overtim-elh\yment.s for
Saturday/Sundayworkis·not an operational nt.-ces.sity suffide-ut to ove.rcome the presumption that theexisting fiw.-.;iay operation .sbt(fed by position.s with a Monday through Friday work ·week and Satu.rday·Su:nday rest d:tysshould not be unilaterally changed.Sec, e.g. Thi.rd Divi.-.iun Awards 36722. We therefore tiud that Carrier,s as..wr tio n that theworkwas sc,·en days ptr weekwork i nut.sufficient in light of the fact that the work b.as p:re-riou Jy been and conti.nues to be pt r-f(>r m cd on a fiyeday per weekbasis with re.lief. As the Board stated in Third Division Award r-;o. 36722: "'... the rt.-corc.t ii) this case shows thatbefore, duriog:,nd after the di.sputed changeover by the Carrier, thework performt.-d remailted de facto a five. da · operation, despite the Carrier's unilateral de iure
declara tion that...it ''"Ould henceforth be schcdu.le.d and compcn:sated as a seven. day operarion. 1
Based ou tbe foregoing, we fmd tha t Carrier violated Ruic 24 oftbe Agreement whtm ii willatcr:aUy changed th inck Sul)(lcpartmcottruck dri"·er positions., Monday
through F.ridayworkwl"cCk·wjtb .Sarurduy and Sundaysd ignatcd as rest days to a w(lrk week with restdaysofolher thanSaturday l:lnd S und ay . As a remedy for the proven violation the Carrier isdirccfod to compensate Claimants in au amountc<1ual to the
d iffer ence . bet-ween what dltJ actually earned under the contractually invalid schedule and
whatthey would haveeat'ned but ror th,e 'l.olation or R.ule24 and until$ueh timeas the
positions nrc properly bulk-tin<'.U. CarriersbnU compen.sat e th e e mplo yet.'7\ a l<igncd to the positions after t.heinvalid change the difference hctwcco the overtinte a m,) .;,tn ig,h.t time rateofpayfor c:1ch bou r wo r k<-.d on the former rc;.t dayscomme.ncing.January 10, 2-014, when the bidsclosed. The0 .-g,ani. atfo,n s re ques t fur additional straight timed.iun ages for the " l os t wo r k op po rt un ity " is her e b y denied, consistent with the-reported dl-cisio ns on th.is
.subject.
l'Lfl No. 7877 ca. cl\o. 17 Award No. 17
AWARD
Claims.sustainedfo »ccordanct with tbe.fin<liogs.
1': r
ANN S. KE NJS, l'\t'utral Member
ANN S. KE NJS, l'\t'utral Member
() L ,;...,.,,A....J
,
('" ,,v:. .,
Carrier t\>1t mhcr
Oa!od J anuary 18, 2019.
Zachary Voegcl
Or aniz.atio n Member