PARTIES) Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees



DISPUTE) St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:























FINDINGS:



assigned hours from 7:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.

The initial reason for the change was "on account getting more time
_ , ., SBA Zgo - Awo

Carrier relies on Award No. 49 of this Board as support for its position. In Award No. 49, the question was whether Carrier had the right under Rule 7-13 (e) to change starting times when a double shift was established. In that dispute Carrier argued that the limitations of Rule 7-13 apply only to single shift situations. There the Board found in pertinent part:









"The Board finds that under Rule 7-13 (e) entitled "VARIATIONS" the Carrier has the right in the performance of regular operations, which necessitate working periods varying from those fixed for the general force in sections (b), (c) and (d), to assign hours of work in accordance with its requirements." (Underscoring added). It is clear, therefore, that Award No. 49 allowed a Carrier to vary from the starting time limitations of (b), (c) and (d) only if there was a substantive showing in the record that such variance was necessary. To hold otherwise would be to render the limitations imposed by (b), (c) and (d) meaningless.


between trains in the afternoon."
The Organization contends that the change was in violation of
Rule 7-13 of the Agreement which reads:













"BEGINNING AND ENDING OF DAY. - (f) Employes time will start and end at designated assembling points for each class of employes." In response to the organization's final appeal, Carrier's highest designated officer stated that: "Requirements of the service necessitated change in the working period for Gang No. 2-S' during the period involved which is permissible under Rule 7-13 (e)." As far as can be determined from the record, no evidence of necessity (other than the above assertions) was proferred to the Organization during the handling on the property. Carrier takes the position that its unilateral action was permissible under Rule 7-13 (e), and that it may do so without agreement in order to meet the requirements of service consistent with efficiency and safety.


                            4 _ ,S8 Ar Sap _qwO If/


A review of the record of what transpired in the handling on the property compels the finding that there was not a substantive showing of necessity as to warrant Carrier's unilateral action. As was stated in Third Division Award No. 20065: "Carrier's objective in the instant case, i.e. to avoid idle time, does not make the requisite showing of necessity within the meaning of Award 3039 and we therefore conclude that the herein change of hours was not permitted by Rule 27.". Rule 27 in that dispute is identical to Rule 7-13 (e) herein.
In view of the foregoing the claim shall be sustained. The
compensation to be paid for each claim date shall be two hours
straight time for the period Claimants were not allowed to work
their assignments between 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., and the difference
between the straight time rate and overtime rate for the work that
was performed between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
AWARD
Claim is sustained per findings herein. Carrier is directed to make payment within 30 days of this award.

                          .!/12/( :C~

                      eut 1 Member


            ~/ 'IZV Y~V ..G~w,~ -

    Carrier M

        z OK

        ember O ganizatio Me ber-


Date: