f
DISSENT TO AWARD N0 :,9
SPBCIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 353
This claim was sustained on basis of awards relating to change
in rest days. Here the change was in the starting time, which was
set back 6
hours from 10:00 PM to 4:00 AM. The rest day changed only
as a consequence of the change in starting time. The claimant did nod
lose a day as claimed since his period of work following the change
was within the 24-hour period beginning at former starting time, and
hence he received:
"* * a minimum of eight hours' pay within each,
twenty-four (24) hour period
as provided in Article 4.
Award 100 of Special Board 100 on this property denied an
identical claim in which assigned starting time of a telegrapher
was changed from 11:00 PM to 12:30 AM. The Employes conceded that
the factual situation was the same in that award, but contended it
had been reversed in later Third Division awards. The awards they
cited dealt with claims where rest days were changed. That is, new
assignments started at the same time of day, but on different days
of the week. In only two awards cited by the Employes (5531 and
12722) was there any evidence of change in starting time and there
the starting time was moved ahead and not set back, and the issue
was either overtime or alleged suspension from work on a new rest
day. Here the claim was not on a rest day either before or after
the change, and the work was all within the same 24=hour period that
would have been worked under the former starting time.
The Employes quoted Article 4, the guarantee rule, as being
one of the "primary rules" involved in the dispute. They also stated
claimant's "work week" was changed, but stated this "had no bearing or
effect on his entitlement" to work on claim date on which they allege
he was suspended, stating:
"For such suspension, Mr. Gaines is entitled to a
day's pay as claimed and as provided in the Guarantee
Rule."
Thus their whole claim was based on the guarantee rule, but
they made no effort to show why it was not satisfied by the payment
for time worked within the same 24-hour period in which he would
have worked if there had been no change. Instead their argument was
an attempt to show that the claim was valid under rule relating to
the work week, despite their statement that such rule was without
bearing.
4
r
Award 100; of Board 100, was not cited by thO Carrier in
any of the claims before the Third Division relating to change in
rest days, as a change in the starting time of day was not involved
in such cases. It was not mentioned in any of the awards. Thus it
has not been reversed specifically, and since the issue involved was
not before the Third Division in the awards the Employes cite, it
has not been reversed by decision on a similar issue as the Employes
allege. It covered an identical case on this property and in my
opinion it properly interprets the rules under the circumstances
involved and should govern in the present case.
M. L: Erwin, Carrier Member