SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTidENT N0. 421
THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS )
Va.
NEW YORii CENTRAL RAILROAD, EASTERN DISTRICT
) N
OV - 41964
(Lxcept Boston and Albany Division) and ).;t:aw.,·;,
NEW YORK DISTRICT )
r
STATEZ"&C OF CLAIM:
1. Carrier violated the terms of the Agreement between the parties when in the
week commencing Monday, July 1, 1963 it refused to pay A. J. Lice, for forty (!a0) hours
of work.
2. Carrier shall be required to pay A. J. Lies. for eight (8) hours at the minimum
rate on his seniority district in addition to arty amounts already paid for the week
commencing Monday, July 1, 1963.
OPINION OF BOARD:
At the time this dispute arose Claimant Lies. was assigned to the extra list
at Buffalo, New York and was subject to call for extra work on the Buffalo Division.
As an extra employee his work week consisted of seven consecutive days starting,with
Monday. In the work week beginning Monday, July 1, 1963 Claimant Lica performed service
as follows:
July 1 Available - not used
2
n n n
3
u n u
4 Tower Director SS-48
5 u u u
6
I
q
The claimant was paid as follows for this work week:
July 4 8 hours at pro-rata rate for holiday pay plus 8 hours at -
punitive
(lJ)
rate ..'
5
8 hours at pro-rata rate
6 8 hours at pro-rata rate
7 8 hours at pro-rata rate
5(3,4 `IZI
AWARD N0. 42
Thus in the work week beginning Monday, July 1, the claimant was paid for
32
hours pro rata rate and 8 hours at punitive rate, or a total of 44 hours pay at
pro rata rate.
Compensation for extra employees is governed by Article II, Section 4(a) of
the December 10,
1962
Agreement, which declares:
"Section 4(a). Extra employees shall be guaranteed payment
for forty (40) hours of work per week, except that this guarantee shall
be reduced by eight (8) hours in any week for any day on which an employee
does not work by reason of his failure to respond in accordance with the
applicable rules of existing agreements to a call on that day for work
which is not in violation of the Hours of Service Law. In computing
this guarantee, when time paid for as an employee represented by the
Organization, or in any other capacity in which the Carrier has the right
to use him under the applicable agreement in any week commencing with
Monday is less than the guaranteed hours, an additional amount of time
will be paid at the minimum rate of a full time telegraph position on
the seniority district involved so that the total time paid for will
equal the guaranteed hours.11
The Organization contends that extra employee Lica was guaranteed
pay
for 40
hours of work in the work week beginning July 1 and that, since he actually worked only
32
hours in that work week and was otherwise available but not used, he was due pay for
an additional 8 hours. The Carrier responds that since the claimant was paid 8 hours
for each day he worked on July 4,
5, 6
and
q, 1963
and was also paid 8 hours at pro
rata rate for the July 4 holiday, the resulting total of 44 hours at pro rata rate was
4 hours more than required by the guarantee rule. The Organization denies that pay
received by an eligible. extra employee for an unworked holiday may be credited toward
the guarantee. The Organization further contends that the punitive portion of Claimant
Licals earnings for working on the July 4 holiday should not be credited toward the
guarantee.
Under Article II, Section 4(a), extra employees who remain available for calls
are guaranteed pay for 40 hours of
work
time. Thus in a non-holiday week an extra
employee who is called for 8 hdars of work on each of only three days (or a total of 24
_ 2 _
hours) is entitled to be paid for an additional
16
hours. If he works for 8 hours gach
on four days of a work week, and is also paid 8 hours at pro rata rate for an unworked
holiday occurring on another day in the same work week, the guarantee has been met
because--by definition--holiday pay is granted in lieu of work on a given day.
But in the subject instance Claimant Lica was paid for only
32
hours of time
occurring on the four days of July
4, 5, 6
and
7, 1963.
Because July
4
was a contract
holiday and the claimant was eligible for holiday pay in addition to punitive pay for
work performed on that day, he received total pay based on a multiple of 21 times the
pro rata rate. Nevertheless the same 8 hours of time was involved on July
4
and this
time cannot be converted to
16
or 20 hours for the purpose of the guarantee rule. The
rule casts the guarantee in terms of number of hours of time, rather than in terms of
the multiple used to compute pay for the hours.
Thus Claimant Lica was paid for only
32
hours occurring from July
4
through
July 7, 1963
and under the guarantee rule he was due to be paid for an additional 8 hours.
The claim will be sustained.
AGiARD:
Claim sustained.
i»
4- ro
'H' ailer, Chairman
L.L. F~sulds,, Carrier Member J Woodman, Employe Member
October
6, 1964
-3-