COPY
ORG. FILE
20-81
CARRIER FILE
140-126-25
AWARD N0. 18
NRAB FILE
CL-7804
CASE N0.
18
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUST ENT N0.
174
PARTIES The Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks,
Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
TO
DISPUTE Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railway Company
STATENLGNT OF CTAZM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(a) Carrier violated the Vacation Agreement and current Clerks'
Agreement at Bro:anwood, Texas, when on June 16 and 17 and August
4
and
5,
1954,
it denied Relief Clerk W. J. Bettis vacation pay for the regular traveling and waiting time assigned to his position; and,
(b) W. J. Bettis shall now be paid an additional three
(3)
hours
at rate of
15.39
per day for June
16, 1954;
an additional eight
(8)
hours at
rate of
$13.30
per day for June 17,
1954;
an additional three hours thirty
minutes
(3'30")
at the rate of
115.39
per day for August
4, 1954
and an
additional seven hours fifty minutes (71501t) at the rate of
$13.30
per day
for August 5,
1954.
FINDINGS: Special Board of Adjustme·.t No.
174,
upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds a·;d holds:
The Carrier and Employes involved in this dispute are respectively
Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as amended.
This Special Board of Adjustment has jurisdiction over this dispute.
Claimant was the incumbent of a Traveling Relief Clerk position
which entitled him to be paid for traveling and waiting time Itas working
time" at the straight time rate of the job to which traveled. While Claimant
was on vacation, his relief was paid for traveling and waiting time but the
Carrier declined to pay Claimant the traveling and waiting time upon the
ground that it was not part of his I'daily compensation" within the meaning
of the Vacation Rule. Hence this claim.
Article XI Section
3-c
of the Agreement reads:
"If the time consume d in actual travel, including
waiting time enroute, from the headquarters point to
the work location, together with necessary time spent
waiting for the employe's shift to start, exceeds one
hour and thirty minutes, or if on completion of his
shift necessary time spent waiting for transportation
10
SBA
I
?y-Own I6
"plus the time of travel, including waiting time enroute, necessary to return to his headquarters point
or to the next work locati3n exceeds one hour and
thirty minutes, then the excess over one hour and
thirty minutes in each case shall be paid for as working time at the straight time rate of the job to which
traveled.
Article 7 (a) of the Vacation Agreement reads:
'lAn employee having a regular assignment will be
paid while on vacation the daily compensation paid by
the carrier for such assignment."
The in'-erpretation placed on Article
7
(a) by the parties on
June 10,
1942
reads:
"This contemplates that an employe having a regular
assignment will not be any better or worse off, while on
vacation, as to the daily compensation paid by the carrier than if he had remained at work on such assignment,
this not to include casual or unassigre d overtime or
anounts received from others than the employing carrier."
First. The Vacation Rule clearly contemplates the payment of something more -
than the straight time daily rate of the position for it speaks of "the daily
compensation paid by the carrier for such assignment"; and this conclusion is _
fortified by the interpretation of the parties
which lays
it down that an employs "will not be any better or worse off, while on vacation, as to the
daily compensation paid by the Carrier than if he had remained at work on
such assignment."
Claimant was certainly worse off to the extent of the traveling and
waiting time, not paid to him as part of his vacation compensation, but paid
to his relief.
Second. It is also clear that pay for traveling and waiting time is part of
"the daily compensations' paid by the carrier for the assignment. This particular assignment consumes the employees time in traveling and waiting, not
for his own account, but for the purpose of performing the
assignment. Indeed
in Article IX Section 3-b the parties themselves have agreed that traveling
and waiting time, which is paid for under the rule, is part of the assignment
for they characterize it "as working time."
Tie do not agree with the Carriers agrument that Claimant is not
entitled to this compensation, because he neither traveled nor waited while
on vacation. Neither did he work while on vacation and yet he was paid for
10 daysf work.
A W A R D
Claim sustained.
/s/ F. D. Comer /s/ Hubert idyckoff /s/ (d. Ray Clark
Carrier Member Chairman Employs Member
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, October
7, 1959.