PROCEEDINGS BEFORE SPECIAL
BOARD GF :~;;.;;:~:',1-:~ : .'·ii>. 1016
a:
Carrier Member: J. H. Burton Labor Member: S. V. Powers
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION
Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier failed to properly compensate Mr. L. J.
Sacher when he was required to report for a physical examination on October 9, 1987
(System Docket CR-3543).
(2) As a consequence of the aforesaid violation:
`We are asking that Mr. Sacher be paid 4 hours at the overtime rate for this examination
on October 9, 1987. We are also asking that he be paid mileage for 45 miles which comes
to 9.45.'
FINDINGS
:
Upon the whole r : ccod and all the evidence, and after hearing on September 6, 1990,
in the Carrier's Office, Phi. :zt:elphia, Pennsylvania, the Board finds that the parties herein are
Carrier and Employees wit] in the meaning of the Railway LaborAct, as amended and that this
Board is duly constituted ~y agreement and has jurisdiction of the parties arid of the subject
matter.
FRED BLACKWELL
ATTORNEY AT LAW
t
P.O. BOX 6095
1
i
WESTCOLUMBIA
S.C.29171
X900:791-8086,
SBA No. 1061 / Award No. 54 - Case \o. 54
DECISION:
The claim for compensation equivalent to four (4) hours overtime pay is sustained.
The claim for payment of mileage for forty-five (45) miles is denied for lack of contract
authority.
OPINION
The facts of this case are not in dispute.
The Claimant was medically disqualified from service due to testing positive for
prohibited drugs during a return to duty physical conducted on March 30, 1987.
Following a subsequent negative drug screen, the Claimant was medically qualified for
work on May 13, 1987.
As a result of the initial positive drug screen in March 1987, the Claimant became
subject to random drug tests under the Conrail Drug Policy.
On October 5, 1987, the Claimant received a hand-delivered letter at 10 A.M.
directing him to report to a medical facility for a drug test, at 9 A.M. the same day. The
Claimant reported the scheduling discrepancy to his Supervisor, who informed the
Claimant that he had been rescheduled for the drug test at 8:15 A.M., Friday, October 9,
1987.
The Claimant stated that October 9 was his rest day, and asked his Supervisor
ff he must go on that day. The Supervisor said yes, and the Claimant complied. The
1
Claimant submitted a claim for compensation and for mileage, due to being required to
take a drug test on his rest day. The Carrier has denied the claim.
FRED BLACKWELL
ATTORNEY AT LAW
PO. Box 6095
WEST COLUMBIA
SC,29171
(603;191-6066
Rule 22 reads as follows:
"RULE
22
- EXAMINATIONS--PHYSICAL AND OTHER
"When examinations are
required by
the Company, arrangements shall be
made to take them without loss of time except:
(a) Examinations required of an
employee returning from furlough,
discipline, leave of absence of
from
absence caused by sickness or disability
need not be given during the employee's tour of duty.
(b) Employees required to take examinations, other than those covered
by
paragraph
(a)
of this Rule outside
the
hours of
their regular
tours of duty will
be
paid therefore under
the provisions
of Rules 11
or 16, whichever is applicable."
The Carrier submits that its denial of the claim was proper, because the Claimant
was not given a physical on October 9, 1987, but rather, was merely required to provide
a urine sample, which took only a few minutes. The Carrier further submits that since the
October 9, 1987 drug screen was required because of the Claimant's positive drug test
on March 30, 1987, the October 9, 1987 drug screen was part of, or an extension of, the
Claimant's return from furlough physical that was conducted on March 30, 1987.
The Carrier's reasons for denying the claim are arbitrary and unreasonable.
The Carrier has authority under Rule 22 to direct an Employee to submit to an
exart
it
ation at a time other than during his tour of duty; however, paragraphs (a) and (b)
of tt a rule, in combination, make it clear that when the Carrier directs an Employee to
submit to an examination during other than his regular tour of duty, such as the herein
case of a rest day, the Carrier is required to compensate the Employee. The language
FRED BLACKWELL
in the rule simply cannot be read as requiring the restrictive definition of
"examinations"
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P.O.
aoxsoes 3
MUMMA,
S.C. 2s»>
Iea31 ls1-saes
ii
SBA No. 1061 ,/ Award No. 54 - Case No. 54
that would be implied if the Carrier's position in this case prevailed.
It is therefore found that the facts of this case come within the purview of Rule
22 (b). Accordingly, the claim will be sustained for four (4) hours overtime compensation;
however, no cited Agreement provision authorized mileage and accordingly, the claim for
mileage will be disallowed.
in view of the foregoing, and based on the record as a whole, the claim will be
sustained as hereinafter provided.
AWARD:
FRED BLACKWELL
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P.O. BOX 6095
WESTCCLUMBIA.
S.C.29171
18031791-8086
The merit of the claim is established by the record as a whole. Accordingly,
the claim is hereby sustained for compensation equivalent to four (4) hours
overtime. There is no agreement authority requiring the Carrier to pay mileage
in the facts of this case and hence the claim for mileage is disallowed.
BY ORDER OF SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 1016
Fred Blackwell, Neutral Member
S. V. Powers, Labor Member
Executed on
4
J.. i. Burton, Carrier T%etmber
,-.Z-
~;Il'e~t
zle,
G'o.9td
Conrail\1016\54-54.106