SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 132
PARTIES: THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS
THE BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY
AWARD IN
DOCKET NO
. 76
STATEMENT
OF CLAIM:
1. Carrier violated the agreement between the parties hereto when on
November 29 and 30, 1953, it paid Operator C. C. Lukehart at the pro rata rate
of pay for work performed at Echo, Pennsylvania, on November 29, 1953, and at
Indiana, Pennsylvania, on November 30, 1953, said dates being his relief days.
2. Carrier be required to compensate Mr. C. C. Lukehart for the difference
between what he was paid at pro rata rate of pay for November 29 and 30, 1953,
and what he should have been paid at the rate of time and one-half on said dates.
FINDINGS:
Claimant was an extra employe who worked an operator position with hours 10 A. M.
to 7 P.M. at Indiana, Pennsylvania on Tuesday, November 24, 1953, Wednesday, November
25, 1953, Friday, November 27, 1953, Saturday, November 28, 1953, and Monday, November
30, 1953. On Sunday, November 29, 1953, he worked the operator's position at Echo,
Pennsylvania from 7 A.M. to 3 P.M. The office at Indiana, Pennsylvania, was not open
on Thursday, November 26, 1953, which was Thanksgiving Day. The work week of both of
the above positions
is
Tuesday through Saturday with Sunday and Monday rest days. He
was paid for his services on November 29 and 30 at the pro rata rate. He claims he
should be paid at the rate of time and one-half.
Carrier resists this claim on the ground that the claimant did not fill the position for five consecutive work days.
The provision
governing the
disposition of this claim is found in Section 1 of an
agreement made October 6, 1953 and reading in pertinent part as follows-
An
kk:'nf::~'ck:;~;
An extra employee takes the assignment. of a regular employee from
the time he commences to fill that assignment. Until relieved
from that assignment he is no longer an unassigned employee as that
term is used in Section 1(i), but has as his days off the regular
days off of the assignment. An extra employee who fills the
assignment of a regular employee, or the assignments of more than
one regular employee having the same work week, for the five consecutive work days of that assignment or assignments, will continue to
hold the last assignment worked for the two succeeding calendar
rest days and if worked on either or both of those rest days he will
be paid at penalty rate.
The question here involved is simply whether or not the claimant should be
considered as filling the assignment of the regular employe at Indiana for five
consecutive work days despite the fact that he did not work the position on
Thursday, November 26, 1953. It is obvious that the parties in the above quoted
provision were speaking of assigned work days as distinguished from assigned rest
days. Thursday was a work day of the position under the rule but because Thursday,
November 26, 1953 was a holiday the position was blanked. The blanking of the
position on Thursday did not, however, alter its status as a work day. Inasmuch
as claimant did not work any other assignment on that Thursday and worked the same
assignment on Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday, he should be considered as
filling the Indiana assignment during the five consecutive work days of the assignment. Accordingly he should have been paid at the time and one-half rate for the
Sunday and Monday rest days.
AWARD
Claims (1) and (2) sustained.
S/ Francis J. Robertson
Francis J. Robertson
Chairman
S/ B. N. Kinkead
B. N. Kinkead,
Employe Member
S/ T. S. Woods
T. S. Woods,
Carrier Member
Dated at Baltimore, Md., this
26th day of April, 1957.