SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTNVNT N0. 117
ORDER OF RP_T,:.'()AD TEL2GRAPHEEERS.
id
MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the
Missouri Pacific Railroad thet:
1. Carrier violated Rule 9, section 1, paragraph IV and Rule 10(c) of
the aE.reemert betwsen the parties when on Surfiay, ftkugust 7, 1P55, it
failec. to properly compensate H. A. Hirsch for service perforrced on
his assigned rest day of position No. 9 in "GM" Relay Office, St.
Louis.
2. Carrier shall now be required to compensate H. A. Hirsch the difference be-lween the 8 hours at time and one-half which he was paid and
'the amount he was entitled to for the work performed on Sunday,
August 7, 1955·
_OPINION OF BOARD: This claim concerns an alleged violation of Rule 9, Section 1,
paragraph IV, and Rule 10(c), wherein the respondent here failed
to compensate claimant for service performed on an assigned .rest day.
Claimant was regularly assigned to a 5-day position with hours
9:00 a.m- to 5:00 p.m., with 3aturaay and Sunday as rest days. On one of his rest
days, namely, August 7, 1955, clainant here was called to fill the position of
Assistant Chief Operator with assigned hours 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
It is alleged that the work performed between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00
a.m. was outside the hours of the claimant's regularly assigned position and that he
is presently due what in the substance amounts to time and one-half at the punitive
rate for the one hour thus performed.
The Organization asserts that this claim is valid by virtue of the
fact that Rule 9, Section 2, specifically states that when employes are required to
perform service on a day which is an assigned rest day within the hours of their
assignment, they shall be paid a minimum of 8 hours at the punitive rate within the
meaning of paragraph IV of Section 1 of Rule 9 and, when called as here to perform
work not continuous with their regular rate will be compensated at the overtime rate
as provided for in Rule 10(c).
The respondent here asserts that the compensation paid the claimant, namely, 8 hours at the punitive rate; for work performed on Sunday, a rest day
of his week-day assignment, was properly made within the meaning of paragraph V,
Section 1, Rule 9.
The respondent further asserted that those sections of Rule 9 relied upon by the Organization in support of their contention that the claimant here
Award No.
48
Docket No.
48
was Improperly compensated for the work so performed necessitated a combining of rules
in a manner which was not conterslated by the parties and was contrary to the clear
intent of the, rules which were adopted by the parties as a result of Mediation Agreement Case No. A-2070.
It was further contended that paragraph V of Section 1 of Rule
9
is here
applicable and that the claimant here was properly compensated for work on one of his
assigned days of rest when,paid for 8 hours at the punitive rate.
It is the opinion of the Board that the Organization here attempts to
divide
the work performed into two parts, namely, that perform :J. '::u-wm,on the hours of
8:00
a.m. and
9:00
a.m.
F:d
the other part between
9:00
a.m. aced ~1:~:: p.m.., and seek compenpation for Vu,
·r~,_;.
performed and here divided into the Two ncccned parts under iwo
different rules
If th:°s oVbstruction and application is placed upon the agreement under the
prevailing sit:ua:in, ,:ae effect would be, in the opinion
o:c
th-e ;board, to nullify
the provistous o.= psra;_raph V, Section 1, Rule
9,
and would rw
_c
in the payment of
more than
1.';?
am:~·u:t rceuired to be paid for such service wiaain ,he meaning of
paragraph. V of .iFula 9:
The Board is of the opinion that paragraph V of Rule
9
requires that when
an employe is required to work on one of his assigned rest days, as here, he should
be compensated for such service at the punitive rate of time and one-half, with a
minimum of
8
hours. The claimant hers was so comprrsated, for which reason the claim
is without merit.
FINDINGS: The Sp°.cial Board o? f dju:stment No. 117, upon the whole record and all the
' evidence, finds and hol6.s: ° .
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively
Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21,
1934.
That this Special Board of Adjustment has ,jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein; and,
That the Carrier did not violate the effective agreement.
Claim denied.
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 117
t~6~®10
C. 0. Griffith,/ ye Member G. W. Jos n - Carrier Member
St. Louis, Missouri
July 31, 1956 - 2 _