C:\AWARDS\OUT\SBA171-2.htm

0 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTI·IENT N0. 171

BROTHERHOOD OF RAIUIAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS.

FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AIM STATION EMPLOYEES

vs

GREAT NORTHERN RAII1VAY COMPANY

AWARD N0. 2 CASE N0. 2 ;'Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Frei;ht Handlers, Express and Station Employee that the C rrier violated the rules of the current agreement, 2ol. When on November 1, 1954 it required certain employes in the Minneapolis Mail Room to suspend work to absorb the meal period in violation of Rule 32(a) of the current agreement covering employees of our craft and class. 02. That the Carrier now be required to compensate the following employes for one hour overtime daily effective November 1, 1954, and each and every day thereafter until the violation is discontinued: Joseph Ronayne Leonard Gerber Andrew Marinko George Marinko Henry Gunelius Donald Hinchman Raphael Bustillos Leonard French Joseph Palider John Burkett Nick Dzandzara Alfred Tompkins Melvin Minks Otto Gertz Paul Wincek Roy Elliott Wesley Temple Frank Nizek Gordon Raabe Darrell Erickson John Galvin Kenton Martin Iner Peterson 913. That the Carrier be required to compensate the following employes for thirty minutes at the overtime rate for November 1, 1954, and each and every day thereafter until the violation is discontinued: Iver Gustafson Ernest Zafka, Sr. Frederick Burley Fred Wilson Arthur Vig Richard Lovdal Milton Stacy Harold Samuelson Michael Wasiluk Oscar Ronglien Allen Peterson Louis Joaphim Andrew Seledic Henry Frederickson Warren Sicard Jewell Hoff Walter Gorka Anthony Pierre Theodore Woolsey Edward Karleski Owen Cunningham Charles Long Aloysiua Faber Arnold Clearance Rodney Lundquist Robert Carchasky Edward Marxer Harry False Ysabel Rodriguez Gregorio Hernandez ,'Gordon Baker Gilbert Bunker Russell Rose Leonard Derheim Melvin Nelson Oscar Akre Forrest Athey Harry Gildmeister Arthur Breiland James Baht Frank'Wator Melvin Weverka Arthur Petersen Alvin Burwell Stanley Blagrove Raymond Johnson Merton Zachow Joseph Beck Paul Weaver Ernest Zafke, Jr, Anthony Blaha Orlando HaroldsonR Walter Biesiada John Graff Le Roy Archer Edward Darsow Arthur Tolaas Clarence Opheim Wallace Kronberg Kenneth Larson Vincent Horvath Walter Kraska Award No. 2

FINDINGS: This Special Board of Adjustment upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier and the employee or employees in this dispute are respectively carrier and employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934. This Special Board of Adjustment has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein. The employees base their claim entirely on Rule 32 of their current agreement, particularly paragraph (a), which reads as follows:

"Rule 32(a). MEAL PERIODS. For regular operations requiri twenty-four

(24) continuous hours, eight

(81

consecutive hours without meal period will be assigned as constituting a dayos work, in which case not less than twenty (205 minutes shall be allowed in which to eat, without deduction in pay. Employes will not be required to work more than six (6) hours without being allowed time off to eat."

The claimants are all involved in the same work, handling mail. Twentythree of them were assigned to work eight hours within a spread of nine hours, with a one-hour meal period, and some sixty-two of them were assigned to work eight hours within a spread of eight and one-half hours, with a thirty minute meal period. The Organization contends that these assignments were in violation of Rule 32(a) because such operation covered a twenty-four hour period each day. The claim seeks the overtime rate for the time worked in excess of eisht hours. It is argued by the Carrier that the assignments overlapped and that fewer employees worked during certain hours of the day than during others. We agree with the organization. It is not denied by the Carrier that at the time of this claim mail handling was a regular operation requiring twenty-four (24) continuous hours a day. The fact that there were fewer employees working during certain hours in no way broke the continuity of identical work performed by employees of the same occupation in a continuous operation. The Carrier violated Rule 32(a), therefore, this claim must be sustained. `~ i

Award No. 2

A T°I A R D Claim sustained. /s/ Thomas C.. Begley Thomas C. Be.-ley, Chairman /s/ C. A. Pearson C. A. Pearson, Carrier Member /s/ F. A.-Emme F. A. Emme, Employee Member Signed at St. Paul, Minnesota, this 10th day of April, 1957. -3-