YARDMASTER DEPARTMENT AWARDS

AWARDS 64 - ATTEND CARRIER CLASSES PAID TIME AND ONE-HALF

AWARD # REFEREE RAILROAD
Third Division Award 10062 Daly Toledo Terminal
Third Division Award 11048 Dolnick Pennsylvania Railroad
Fourth Division Award 417 Jackson Chesapeake & Ohio
Fourth Division Award 454 O'Neill Northern Pacific Railway
Fourth Division Award 567 Munro Pennsylvania Railroad
Fourth Division Award 1018 Larkin Baltimore and Ohio
Fourth Division Award 2428 Larkin Penn Central (Pennsylvania RR)
Fourth Division Award 3325 Lieberman Norfolk and Western

Fourth Division Award No. 3325 (Lieberman)

"In the dispute before us attendance at the classes was mandatory and it is also interesting to note that Carrier, although stating on the property that there was no rule requirement for any compensation, did indeed compensate other employes for attendance at the same classes on their regularly assigned work days. To accept Carrier's reasoning all training programs, regardless of purposes cannot be considered to be work, within the meaning of that term in the Agreement. We do not agree. The purpose of the program is relevant and must be considered in each instance. If training were for the purpose of qualifying an employee to retain his position (e.g. rules examination classes) or for the purpose of qualifying for promotion or for the purpose (among others) of learning new procedures we would not allow a claim for overtime compensation such as that requested herein. Such programs are either for the primary benefit of the employe or mutually advantageous to Carrier and employes. In this case, as in any other general training programs to increase the efficiency of the employes, we must conclude that the program is for the primary benefit of Carrier and must be construed as work. Accordingly, we find that Claimants did perform a service when they attended the classes on their rest days and should have been paid for such attendance at the time and one-half rate."

Fourth Division Award No. 1018 (Larkin)

"OPINION OF BOARD: This is a request for pay for attending a yardmasters meeting called by the Company's trainmaster at its Connellsville, Pa., Terminal on November 14, 1953. Three of the yardmasters were held for 35 minutes beyond their regular quitting time and are requesting premium pay for that period (Article 3 (b)). Four of the claimants were required to appear 30 minutes before their regular starting time and are claiming time and one-half pay under the same rule. Three are claiming pay for being called in on their relief day (Article 4 (a)). And four of the claimants are third trick employes claiming time and one-half pay for reporting on a call (Article 3 (d)).

"The Carrier contends that such service on the part of the yardmasters is not `work' as contemplated by the language of Articles 3 and 4 of the agreement and, therefore, requires no premium pay.

"The meeting was called for the purpose of improving the efficiency of operations in the yards. The attendance of yardmasters was necessary; and their attendance was required by the Carrier. To argue that this was not yardmasters' work is without basis. And to claim that the agreement rules set forth in Articles 3 and 4 do not apply is to ignore the plain and simple facts of the situation.

"If the Carrier is permitted to impinge upon an employe's free time by requiring him to perform special service such as this by simply saying that this isn't `work', soon the employe may have no time he can call his own. The provisions of Articles 3 and 4 were negotiated for the distinct purpose of requiring extra pay for extra work. And as we see the meeting at the Connellsville, Pa., Terminal on the afternoon of November 24, 1953, it was a part of the yardmasters' required duties. In our opinion it was yardmasters' work and should be paid for at the rates prescribed in the agreement.

"The claim is sustained."

Third Division Award No. 11048 (Dolnick)

"Carrier may not indiscriminately order employes to report for meetings outside their regular work hours. They may be so ordered where such a meeting will primarily benefit the employe, where it is of mutual benefit to the employe and the Carrier, where the meeting is to permit the employe to qualify for a position, where attendance is optional and not compulsory, and when the meeting is called to acquaint the employe with new operating rules and procedures. The meetings on February 7, April 1 and May 1, 1957, do not fall within these categories. See Award 10808 (Moore). Those employes who were obliged to and did attend the meetings performed 'work' or 'service' under the terms of the Agreement and are entitled to compensation as provided in Rule 4-A-6."

Fourth Division Award No. 567 (Munro)

"The purpose for which such meetings were called by carrier is unquestionably a benefit to the employes. No doubt they welcome the opportunity to learn how to more efficiently perform their duties and thereby enhance the possibilities of promotion.

"It may be also be said such meetings benefit the carrier in that as a result of increased efficiency on the part of its employes it is but furnishing to its patrons that type of service patrons are entitled to receive when they engage its services.

"May this Board say that the required attendance of employes Chatman and Donahue at the meetings they attended constituted 'work' within the meaning of Rule 4-A-3? By reason of carrier's stated purpose of the meetings this Board believes it should answer the question in the affirmative. Rule 4-C-1 (b) considers that type of 'call' cases other than the type governed by Rule 4-A-3. Considering the purpose of the meeting employe Cooper was required to attend this Board believes that attendance constituted 'work' within the meaning of said Rule. The Board then must apply the clear and unambiguous meaning of such Rule with reference to the rate of pay Cooper is entitled to receive.

"It is accordingly ordered by the Board that the claim and request in all respects be and it is hereby sustained."

Fourth Division Award No. 454 (O'Neill)

"It is conceded that the claimant was required to attend the investigation. Whether that attendance was work is a matter for interpretation and we are of the opinion that is was work. As to the amount of compensation claimant is entitled to, we believe that is determined by that part of Rule 3, Section (a) quoted above, 'he will be paid therefor at rate of time and one-half' for the day."

Fourth Division Award No. 2428 (Larkin)

"The basic issue in this case is the same as that involved in Docket 2177, and disposed of in Award 2197, with Referee Jacob Seidenberg participating. It appears that the only difference is in the fact that in the earlier case the Claimant was called in on his rest day to relieve a fellow Yardmaster who had become ill, whereas in the instant case the Claimants were required by the Carrier to appear on their assigned rest day to attend a meeting concerning Carrier's loss and damage program.

"After reviewing the record, we must conclude that, regardless of whether or not regular Yardmaster's service was performed, the fact that the Carrier asked Claimants to report on their rest day requires that they be paid the prescribed rate of pay for the rest day service. As stated in Award 567, the purpose of the meeting which Claimants were required to attend constituted 'work' within the meaning of Rule 4-C-1 (b)."

Fourth Division Award No. 417 (Jackson)

"The awards on this question are in conflict. However, in considering these cases, we believe that emphasis should be placed upon the purpose to be served. Here, it was a question of serving on a Safety Committee, a desirable feature in any enterprise, particularly railroads. Obviously, such service benefits the employes. But in the long run it is of more benefit to the Carrier. In our opinion, service on the Safety Committee was an important aspect of the duties of this employe. This being so, we believe it was a part of his work and that he should be compensated under Rule 11(a)."

Third Division Award No. 10062 (Daly)

"In this particular case, the Claimant was ordered to attend a meeting on his rest day. The meeting was for the purpose of discussing some operational problems with the Claimant and two other dispatchers. Certainly no one will deny that such a meeting was primarily for the Carrier's benefit. Accordingly, the Board holds that the Claimant did perform a service when he attended — on his rest day — the Carrier meeting held on July 22, 1955.

"This Board shares the opinion expressed by Referee Messmore in Award 3462 — which is as follows: '. . . the Carrier took claimant's time for its own use and benefit and in the furtherance of its own business and that, under such circumstances, it mattered not whether claimant worked or only stood and waited, he was entitled to pay . . .'

"That the Claimant performed a service within the contractual meaning of Article 3, Section 1, Paragraph M, and also within the purview of the dictionary definition of the word 'service' there can be no doubt. Furthermore, the language of that provision is not clouded or obscure but simple and direct."


Yardmaster Subject Index

Last modified: April 29, 2005