SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0.
170
BROTHEfui00D OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERICS,
FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND.STATION E14PLOYES
versus
I _
ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: (1) Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that
the Carrier violated the rules of the Clerks' Agreement at
its South Water Street freight agency, Chicago, Illinois, when it failed to com
pensate:
D. Daly A. W. Williams
J. Young E. Sereye
W. Clifford W. Wilburn
C. Speziale A. Barnes
G. Dickey F. Plesetz
P. Donlan G. Washington
P. Creed E. Griffin
v.
Gilbert C. Sutton
M. O'Leary F. Mitchell
N. LeBlanc J. Paine
W. Schultz 1). Douglas
J. Gerrity E. Winchester
C. M. White J. Bruton
J. Simpson M. J. Gillen
S. Tishey W. White
D. Swedberg M. Mostowy
at rate of time and one-half for services rendered on Monday, February 13, 1956,
the seventh day of their work week.
(2) That Carrier shall now be required to compensate the Claimants
the difference between the pro rata rate they received and the rate of time and
one-half they
should have been paid for services rendered on February
13,
1956.
OPINION: Claimants were the regularly assigned incumbents of positions in the
South Water Street freight agency warehouse at Chicago, Illinois. Their
assignment or working hours were from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with a work week Tuesday through Saturday with Sunday and Monday as rest days. On February
8,
1956,
the Carrier notified the Claimants on the bulletin board that effective February
13,
1956, their rest days would be changed from Sunday and Monday to Saturday
and Sunday, and that their work week would be Monday through Friday.
It is the position of the Carrier that it can
change the
rest days of
its employes to suit its convenience in the best interests of management.
It is the position of the Employes that the Claimants' work week commenced Tuesday, February
7,
1956, and extended seven days through Monday, February
Award No.
47
Docket No. CL-9229
13,
1956, and that during this period they worked six days, that they were not
allowed two consecutive rest days and are, therefore, entitled to compensation
at the penalty rate for the sixth day of work.
There should be no dispute over the fact that a "work week" consists
of five working days to be followed by two consecutive rest days. It is also a
fact that there is no rule in the agreement which limits the Carrier as to when
it can make a change in assigned rest days effective, but this right of the Car-,
rier is conditioned on the provisions of Rule
37,
which provides that work in excess of
40
straight time hours in any "!work week" shall be paid for at one and
one-half times the basic straight time,rate.
In the case at bar, Claimants worked six days during the regular work
week and should be compensated accordingly.
Claim allowed as to Claimants who rendered six days of service during
the work week commencing February 8, 1956.
FINDINGS: The Special Board of Adjustment No. 170, after giving to the parties
to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole
record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the Carrier and Employes involved in this dispute are respectively
Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act;
That the Special Board of Adjustment No. 170 has jurisdiction over
the dispute involved herein; and
That the agreement was violated.
AWARD: Claim sustained.
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0.
170
/s/ Edward M. Shame
Edward M. Sharpe - Chairman
/s/ R. W. Cope7.and /s/ E. 11.
Hai7.rann
R. W. Cop eland - Employe Member E. H. Hallmann - Carrier Member
Chicago, Illinois
June 1 is
(Date
- 2 -