.gn mc1JtsP UBLIC LA\V BOARD NO. 7877
Brotherhood of M:ii.Dten.:mceof \ Vuy )
£mployes Divi..ion- IBTRail )
Conference )
)
and )
)
)
BNSF Railway Company J
AWARl) NO. 20
CASF;N0.20
NRAB- 00003•160017
STAT.EJ\'IEl'IT OF Cl.AIM: Cl:tin., of the System Ccu. um ittec of the BrotherbooJ t.h:tt:
(I) TheCar rier;", fated the A g,rceme n t wbeu, by Rulletiu GT408B - f6 whic:b O{>Cl'IL-d on
August t6. 2014, it bollclin,:d 3Dd ultima tely assigned the Wcldiug Gang
TR \.VX2X0 l 2 (Jfo a d \ Yelder Position 570-05 aoJ G rin de r Ope rator Posi rio o 57008) withhea dqu a rters in Willow Springs, TIJinois to a workweek wjtb. re-st daysof other than Saturd•y andSttuday (SJ•, tem File C-14-A040-32/!0-14-4-03BNR).
As :t consequence of th,e i ol:ltion reth r,,d to1n Pa r t (1) above, Claimant 8.
K,;camilla shall:
••.he paid at the overtime n1te of pay for au hours worked every S:1tur da y that the ·
:trer equ i r.ed to workand eight (8)Slraigbt tilllt' hou.rs for every1 \.to nd .ay when lhcy
:1re required to su...pc.od work, comx:ue.nciJ)g Aug ust 16, 2014 &.l)d contin uing. uo til
t h e vio llllion ccas.es.
Also, as s.i:ttcf rnent oftb.is dairu, J :1ru requesting tbal thesf: positions be abolis hed
a n d r e-bt:ille.ti ned wi1h a Monday through fric.by lvork wt."Ck. and the rets Saturday and Sunday.
daysof
-
-
Asth.isis a continuin- cfaim, this. would not ouJy be a claim for the Cb:iw.a.ots
namedi .o this dilim, but any cmployc:-c.s tharwould.subseque:u11y exercise their
seniority to these positions h:1 a u · manner.
OPINIONOJi HOARD:
Pu bl.ic Law Uqard No. i877, upon thewhole n:.'(.'Ord and all ( he t vid cnce, finds that tbe parties herein ra c Carrier.aod.Employees witltin the meaningoftht Rui.fway Labor Act, as ::1.m eoded ; that tbe80:J:rd has juri..;dictionover the dispute herein; and tb:.t tbe p:1rtfos lot h e. dispute wereginn due001icc of the hea:riog :tnd didJ •artk ipa ce tbcn:..i.o.
1nrcn d. eriog o u r f'mdlugx, the Boa:rd h:1.$ consider e d only the arguments au<l e.vi.dc nce l'.t iscdduring theon•properf)' handl ing M th isclaim.
On Au.g,u t 16, 2014, Cnricr bulletinedhead welder and grinder oper .:ttor po.sit ion ·
as se,•en (1) daya Wt k positions with rest daysof Su:oday and Monday.There is nodispute
PLBNo. 7877
C3se No. 20
Award No.20
tbat thenewpos i tio o .s had the s a tnc bead11uarte aad jobduties:.1s they had hi..,toricaJly
111ah 1i
. io e d 4 T .b·erei ..; also no d, J ute tbnL lbebead wddcr nd gri.oder posltion8 previously
workeda live (5) day a week schcc.fuJe ·it.b Saturd2y and Sunday re-srd ys.
The Organizatioh filed the instant claill'.l ai..serring tbat theCarrier's bulletin
improperly created tbese.position,s with rest day ofSonday andMon da.)· The
Organizationcon tc od. s tba( the positions ::tr(' i.J1 fact assign.ed as fhe· (5) day$ per week and
:trenotfilled or work.i.ngon a seven (7) day per week basis. Aeeohiio.g to the Organi'.l,ation, the Carrie,r i• olattd the controlling Agreetncnt by requiring tbe Cl.aimants to wo k positions as.. igaed with .resr d»ys otherthan S:1turday and Sunday. Furth . the Organi:t.ationasserts that Cardet's buUetfo improperly required f:laimants to perform service on rhc 1· 1Jircd rest cby of Satu rd ay. In suppon of its position, the O anl/,ation
rt-lies on Ruic 24, which pt-0vides in relevant part:
RULi,;24. FORTY HOUR WORK WEEK
Sobj<:ct to the cx. <'ep tions contained in th.is Agreement, a work week of forty( 40 ) boun., consisting of five(5) d»ysof eight (8) hoUJ·s each, with two(2) con.socutivc daysoft i.o each sevw (7)is hereby t$(ablisbed. The workweeks may he
.staggen. -d in acc()rdancc with the Company's ope ttion.al requi'rcmeots.So far a'i practic-at,Je the daysoff:shaU be S3turday aod Sund:ty. Thi:s work ,,,.eek ruleis subject tu the provisi0t)S which follow.
O TE: The expressions 'f)Qsitions ' :u) .d ' wo rk ' refer to ser vict"..'; d 1Jli
,C$ or
opcr-Jtions ncce..s.sary to be pcrlonued the St)ccified number of d31 sy and not to the workweek of individ·ual employees.
per Wt':ek,
I>. 'IJI V-ed ay })(g) ir io .o. --. O.a poiritioos thedutic::s of which t.'-3n reasonably be met in
five (5) days, the d:tysoff will beSaturday :1.nd Sunday.
EL Si:t-Jay Positions- Where tJu. n3 ture . of th.e' "·o r-k is such that employes will be
needed ix( 6 ) days C'.tch week, tbc rest days wUJ be e.ither.Saturd:tyand Sunday, or Su.nday nd fouday.
J i". Seven-day Positions - Oo positions which are filled seven (7) daysllcr week s.ny two (2) c<msecuth'c days mlly be the restday with the presumption ill favorof Snturday and Sunday.
C:;. Regub,r R.elief .gn mc1Jts
( 1 ) All possible regulur relief a.. signments with fi"e(5) days ofwor-k aod nvo ( 2 ) consecucive rest day.s wiUhe established to do the workn ec.es'.lr.ay on r.es t days of a.-;signmeots in si.t (6) or seven (7) d.ayservict or eombinations thereof , or Lo perfor"m relie.f,vork on Ct:rf.:ti.n d.:tys :tnds uc h
2
)'Lil No.7877
Case No.·zO
A wardNo.20
types of otherwork onoth-cr daysa rnay be as.signed. Relief :tssigrrmcnts
wi.11 oot he req ui r ed to have five (5) duy:I' of work per week.
(2 ) Assignnumts for regular relief positio·ns may Oh di.ffuent days include different.')t:n·ti ng ti.mt.s, duties and work locn.ffons for ttJ1ployes ofl hc
$a.mecl& $ in the- s:n:ue st u iori · district, provid<..-d they take thestarting time, duties and work!ocati•ms of tJt-t cmp!oye or crnployes ,,·hom they arc relieving.
H. Deviation from Mc>nda y• Fri day \Vttk- Ifin po$itlons or woi:-k exteudiog over 1,1. ptriod of five(5) day$ per week an operationalproblem arist.'- which the Company contcods cannot be metunder the provii.ions of.Sectioo D of thi rule, atld requires th1,1.t .some ()f such en1ployes ·ork Tuesday th.rough Saturday in {cad ofMon day through}itiday, and the emplo ·cs contend the contrary aod if the parties failto agree thereon, tben if the con1pany ne,·ert hd css put sucha.ssigmncots intodfcc.t, the dispute may be processed a." a gri C\':tncc or claim u.ode.,. this Agreement.
The Organization asserts that RuJe24(A) and ( 0 ) are clear:u:td unambiguous in
pr o, • i d ing for .Sd: ur da y and Sunday as n..st days when posit.ions havedu.ties whichca. 11
reaiionably be met in fived:1ys. Con istent l\-ith th.is Agreement lang11age, the positions esta h l i:shed for the we-ldi"nggang hercill have hi..5toricalJy h(.-cn assigned a five-day ,,,.ork week with Satunlay and Su.nday a.,; rest days. The Organization argues thatCarrierhas
notshown ayn ch a nge in operational need to bulletin these positionswith other than
Saturduy and S'onday as h:'.<itdaysnor hasCarrier established that theduties of thc.se
weldingg:a.og. positions cannot be met in fh-e.days. Insuch a circu.wsta ucc, the
O. rganiz:.a.it on point totbem»oyprecedent award onthissubjectwhich havecondudcd that Carriercannot O\' c rc(nll e lhc hea vy pn- .s.um p tio n. th:lt positi(lo.lJl arc to he ::t ign c:d
workweekc onsisting of fivedays with Sd:
m:day an<l Suoclay a. rest days. Scc PL.84014,
1
f:'3ses9 1 to, J 1; SBA 110i, Award No. I (f.ischen, 1999);Third Oivi.sion Aw a rds 35564; 35805; 36055; 36722; 37049; 4156{; PLB 7656, Award 4(Strong,,in, 2-014).
In additio theOrganization c.ootcnds that Ruic24(11) re q uires Can-icr tocontact the Organization and discuss the i.5sueif an '>pe ra ti ona l probJ(',n1 11.ri$eS which c»nnot be
m.d under Rule24(D). No attempt by tbt Carrierwa.. made to contact the Or H-ni.ution
p r ior to i tnp lc ro.en tin ·g the positions at issue. Tl:u.: Organization argue." th.at the first timet he . matterwas brought to itsattenrion.was when the positions were poskd forb ullet in.
In po.nse, Carrier c.onten<ls thatit fully complied with the provt5ions of fhc controlling Agreeme-.,t. ft argues that Rule24(Fi) recogn iu s lhatseven-day poist io n. may bt cre.1ted a nd any t'v1.0 consecutive daysmay bethe rest da.)'s. A seven-day assi gnm ent can
be. (.';'.tablishtd where, as in thiscast.(heree:tistsseven days of work. On liveof thoses t •.,cn
day . the work is perlonncd by therc:,gular (seven-d.ay) position/g:mg, with the remaining
m 10 daysof work performed by its hu.lletiued regu.1.ar relieftrcw in acc<,nlauce.·with Rule
3
24(C).
PLI!No.7877
Case No. 20
Award No. 20
The Carriercontends that there1snoagreement fa.oguagc io Huie 24 (J)i or ( G ) that
r t'.\(11tlr es it to show any opcratfon:d need. Rven if uch a$b(.n'ring i!> n essary, however, Car:-riel' 3$$crts thatit ha$ lbe wa:n:igeriaJ right to dctenn i·nc the t ffi.cein t tQndu('t of it"> husi.a'-'Ss.In cr esae d traffic volutnc.reqoircCanicr to re p-0nd to ttny events that hamper th.tsincre cd train traffic. Equally import:1nt, the fact lhnt thereis coverage:1ssigntd
c\'cnda ·J per wc.ek is evidenc .e in :1nd of it:-elf that there is an ope:ratfonaJ ,u.·ed; otherwise
lhc Carri-tr would s.i.tup Jy pay overtime ra tt\. for O<'ta$ional work insteado f µ, ay i.og an
additional 40 hours ofstraight timtpay to an :1dctition:t1 employee.
C:Jrrie'r rcco;;_nizes that Ru.le24 ( A) and (0) ai·e::tpplicablt when Ch. e re isa ehaoge in
the workweek.-.itu.ationi wh ere. ar. tv e-d a y assi gn·mcn.t for opcratiot1:d reasuos cannot he
performed ona Mouday through Frid:tj' b:,sis. In t.b:nsituation, CarrieracknowJedtcs it would ha\·e to prove opcr.ttional need to cbed·ufc :t change in the work week and rest days. Here thepositions in qu€-.stion arc regular.,;even-d:ty as5;ig.nm.ents lOcover.-.even-day
...ervke requirements and tbeir relief p-0silioos werecreated to relieve the rest days of the
:,;v.een- day a:ssigu:ments.Sim.-.c the Carrier tm1. ·desi nate seve-11 d:iys of workwhere there is such need, it i.s not required to inform the Org:tllizatfon beforeh:u:1d. In ...upporl ofits posilion, Carrier citesa lineof cases which ha\'c rtatbcd thesal:nc condusion in simil.a.r
faeru»J circurnsfanccs.Tbe-se prfor awards, in C':arrier's vjew,should be deemed controlling in the instant case. Sec, e.g., Third Dh·i.-.iun A,,·a rd 21428; Pl,B2960, Award 80 (\el m on, 1985) App<udix K SBA, Award 23 (0' l!r,cn, 1977).
The BoarJ ha.. reviewed theconsidcr:1:blea:rhitraJ prtet..-dent providedby the
p:-,rtie,s. ll is clear thatwe»renocoperati:ng in tlllC'hartcd waler.,;. No,...,..·.iths 1an d ing the
holdings insom.e c:u-Jier t n:o.cs . upon which the Carrier relie-s, rhc bd te .r r€."o1Sone<al n. d
majority·\icw has :1dbered for de,c,ade.s to the principksset forth inSpecial Roard of
Adju:-.tm.ent No.1107, A.ward No. 1 (Ri chen) wbcn interpretingthe Fo1'ty lfour \\'ork.
\\ll.'(:k!
Theseearly cas€.-... laid dowo the guidi.og princjple, follo,•ted iu :di of the better.. rcaso11€.-d casC$ d€.-cided in tbe fa.;,t 40 yea , that the language..:e.ppcaring in RuJe 15(a)a nd (b) cn:.'3.tes a rebu:ttable presumptioD. thalexisting fin! -da ) ' operations
.-.faffed hy posititms with a Monda·J-Friday work w·eck :tnd Saturday.Sunday rest
cfaysshou1d not unOaterally be tbangcd to sc: , cn- da y opcr:ttions with other tba.u Sa tur day- S un day rt.".S-t days. ACarrier involdng the Jangu:1gc of Rulel 7(a) and (d) to alttr thi.-.statusquo3lld justify intpkmentin.;;such a changefrom rrve-day fond:ty through Frida ' p-0sitioo!> to seven-dayt)osifions with other th:tn Sarurt.lay Sunday rest days, be.ars the burden ofl"d)utting that presumption b) ' 1>rodudng clear and convincingevidence of nccessil)• due to a matcriaJ ehaoge of operational
.requircm.eoL.., i.e., a boha fideopt-national 11€.·cd to make the c:bange.
Contrary to Carrier's position, we ::arc peJ'suadt..'(( that Ruic 24 C'annot beproperly
interpreted at this point i.o timeas :.tuthol"itbig the C:urier to unilaterallya bo slih historic
!'Lil No.7877
Ca:-.c No.20
AwardNo. 20
fh· e-d ay positions a:nd to re-- tablisb them as .seven-day positions so as to a.void the plain readfog of Rufe24.The Agreement i.'i clear that a Monday through Jirid:ty eight hourper day \\>Orkweekis the contractually preferred schedule. Altho-ogb deviation frokn the Monday through Friday .scbtdule is permitted, Rule 24(A) nevertheless requinsa howing that thereare "operational requi.remt.nt)i:,, which n«es. itate the.change and,further, thatil is o.ot '"pr-..1cticab1e" to ba\'CSatunfaya:ud Sunday rest day.-.. Notably tbe prcs1.Jmptjon i.n
favorof Saturday and Sunc;by rest daysapplie-s equally to.-.even-day positions u.nd-re
24(F).
Rule
Thus. Carrier's a..,;scrtion tbatit nt."Cd not es:t.ablisb a ny change. oi o pre.a t iona l requil'etncnts is inconsistr:nt·with the t1uiru11ge of Rule 24 and the Jong lineof ca.se.s interpreting the F1irty Hour Work Rulewhich J'tquirc Can-i,.-r to show operational
nt-cessity inor d.er lochange a loug-t'.:'Sfa b Ji h t.'d?\'Joniliey through Friday f'"n.·e-day position
with Saturday andSundayrt'lit days..;o as to pro\idtsc\'CD-<fay coverage with rest days
otherthan Saturday and Sunday.
Carr ier 's aJtern:dive argUJJ1enc i.,; thatan increa. e in. train trafficand the need for seven- day co,•c rage rebutthepresuruptioo ill fa"' Or of the Monday through Friday workweek wi1h restda ys on Saturday ltod Subday. In our view, howe'\er , thatargument is equally problematic, for two ·rca,.;ons. Fi t, there isno e.vidcnce in the record to support the C:trrfor's poS'itio.o that therehan·beeu m:.ttetiaJ modificatjon:, i.n conditions whicbjus ti f .)'a change in work M:h.eduJe-. thathave been in existence for dtt ad t'.S. The hurdeo wa on the Clln:ier- to estabfo,h that voi.nt. ln tqntrast t<> Third Division 36999, ·here Carrier
introducc:.-d pro ba tiveevidence that it was unubJe to meetservice demandsby the u..;c of o·N•rti.me on weekcr:,Js and where1hcdutiesof the positions could not rea.-.onabJy be met cn1
a. Mon da, ., tbrou h F'.riday j;chedule, no substantive evidencel'\ as offered tosupport C1mier's position in this Uli-c.
te hut.
Second, railroading ha alw ys been ll 24/7 openl.f.io.o..With<mt suh t:1u1Uation h>
the presumption of the Monday th.rough Friday ·workweek with Saturday and
.Sundayft${d:tys, w. e are compelled to conclude. thatwbac Carrier isattempting to do is rearran ge. workschedules of positions thatwere historic-any assigned 6.ve day .scnice
Monday tb:rnugb. l''riday to schcdute.s t.haf are still five-day :,i. w k sc·rvi ce but ovcrlappihg the.'>c positions to pro,·ide se,·tn day covcr:1ge l\'llh rest da) ·s qf other than Saturday and
Su ncfa. y The eff'ttt i.-. to :woid 1b.e payment of o,·trti.me ori weekends. ft bas been
consistently c tablishcd, l:to,« · wcr, that.avqidancc of overtime. paymtnL-. for Saturday/Sundaywork is noc iln ope.rational Dttt ity sufficieot too,•crcome the
p t t u,.m p tion thatthe cxi.sting fi,..e-<laJ· operation st:1ffed by positfonswitha Monday
tbtoughF' rida y work weekanJ Saturday- Sui1daJ' rt.'!)t daysshould not he unilaterally changed.Set't e.g.Thfrd Division Award. 36722. \Ve therefore find that Carrier's a.-.scrtiou that theworkwassevtu days pe.r week work i!S not sufficient in light of the factthat the
wor k haspre v iou sl y been and cont"in u.cs to be performed oo.:i. fil' e d:ty t' wt. k basis with
relief. As the Board.-.tated in Third Oh·kdon A ·ra d No. 36722: " ... the record in thisc.ise
howst h: d before., during and :1fter thl:di.sputctJ eba nge.o\•cr by tlle C:trrier, the work
pe r fot me d remained de factoa five-dayopcr-:Hion, de-.pite the Carrier'sunilateral de iure
5
Award No. 20
dedur: d fon lhat••.ic \\'Oll.ld henceforth be sc.bcduled and compe:n$ated asn seven-day
operation.,..
Based oo the foregoing. wefind tbat Carrjcrvfofated Rlllc 24 of the Agree.rucnt when it unilaterally ch:u:iged the Willow Spri11g,..; '\\ ' eld ing Gan po.sJtions M<mday tlrrou.gb Friday workweekwith Saturdays and Suodays dci-ignated as .rest days toa Tut:sda:r throug,h Satunby workweek -with Sunday and M_C)nday a.<. re st day . Asa remedy for the
proven "io' Jation , the Carrier isdirected to compcn:o.ate (.;J.airnants in an amount equalLo
tbe iliffcrencc hct\l'een what they actually earned under the co.ntracruallyinvalid scltedulc i:tr.i.d what they·o u) d have carn('d but for the vioJatio n of Ruic 24 and untilsuch time a.\ the position.s :1reproperly bulletined. Carriershallcompensate tbe employc('S assitned to the gaoaftertheim · :d id change the difference bem•cc-n the ow rt imt and i;traigbt time rareM
payforeach hour worked on the foo:uerSuttuday rc:i.t day afterthe August1,6 2014
c h,;an.eg \. The Organiuti,m's requl'.\it for additional straight timedama; forthe"lost
w,,rkoppm1unitJ" is hei-cby denied, eoost.'ucnt \v.itb the re,poi-ttd decisions on thissu bjec t.
AWARD
Claim sustaint.-d in accordance with tbe Findin .
():,.tcd Janu .a.ry 18, 2019 .
2-
2-
2r:c k. ·--.:
Organiz:.ition Member