AWARDS 107 - ATTENDANCE AT CARRIER CLASSES NOT CONSIDERED WORK

Second Division Award No. 12235 (Simon)

"The issue in this dispute is similar to that decided by this Board in Second Division Award 12234, i.e., whether Rule 6 of the Agreement requires the payment of overtime for the time Claimant was required to attend the class on his rest day. This case, however, deals with the five day workweek Rule rather than the eight hour day Rule, and is governed by Rule 6(c), which reads as follows:

`Employees worked more than five days in a work week shall be paid one and one-half times the basic straight time rate for work on the sixth and seventh days of their work weeks, except where such work is performed by an employee due to moving from one assignment to another, or to or from a furloughed list, or where days off are being accumulated under paragraph (h) of Rule 2.'

"As this Board held in Award 12234, we read this Rule to apply only when the employee is actually performing work or service. There is no evidence Claimant performed any productive work as a part of this class. It is significant, in this regard, that the class was conducted away from the work site. Accordingly, we find the time spent in the class was not subject to the overtime provisions of the Agreement."

Second Division Award No. 12367 (Muessig)

"The question at issue in this claim is whether the Carrier is required, pursuant to Rule 6-Overtime, to pay employees at the overtime rate for their voluntary attendance at Safety Meetings. Rule 6(a) provides:

"`All service performed outside of bulletined hours will be paid for at the rate of time and one-half until relieved except as may be provided in rules hereinafter set out.'

"This same issue has been addressed numerous times on this property and throughout the industry.

"Specifically, past Awards have held that attendance at training classes are not `work' or `service.' See among other Awards, Third Division Award 20707 and 20323. Therefore, we again adhere to the wisdom of applying the findings made in previous Awards to identical situations. Accordingly, the Carrier's decision to pay for attendance at the training sessions at the straight-time rate was proper."

Second Division Award No. 12400 (Cohen)

"The Board has carefully examined the record and concludes that the Claimant's attendance at the training class held on August 10, 1989 was not `continuous service after regular working hours' within the intent and meaning of Rule 7(a). Accordingly, the claim for the difference between the straight time and the overtime rate is denied."

Fourth Division Award No. 4933 (Richter)

"This issue has been handled many times in the past. The Agreement in this case is silent as it pertains to compensation for employees attending mandated training sessions. The majority of Awards have held that if the training sessions were of mutual benefit to both the Carrier and the employees, attendance is not considered work as contemplated by the Agreement.

"In Fourth Division Award 4900 Claimants were required to attend a safety class pertaining to the use of drugs and alcohol. The subject matter of the classes in this case is similar. In Award 4900 the Board held:

'Carrier conceded that the Claimants attended a training class sponsored by the Safety and Training Departments concerning safety policies and procedures and drug/alcohol abuse. Because the claimants were assigned to the training classes so that they could improve their supervisor skills regarding safety issues and the company policy regarding drug and alcohol use, they did not work or perform services. The classes are ". . .beneficial to both the employees as well as the Company" and thus the "mutuality of interest" concept controls.

'As expressed in the Carrier's Submission, and as is reasonably inferred from the handling on the property, the Claimants attended sessions for three days and it was necessary for certain employees to spend certain rest days in attendance. Further, it is clear that the topics dealt with work related matters as it pertains to performing Supervisory duties, as contrasted to any suggestion that were experiencing with safety, alcohol, drugs, etc.'

"The Claimants in this case had to attend classes to comply with FRA Regulations which require that they have knowledge of how individuals react when impaired by a controlled substance. We will not contradict the findings in Fourth Division Award 4900 and will likewise hold the Claimants did not perform work or service as contemplated in Rule 4 (D). The Agreement was not violated."

Third Division Award No. 30047 (Mason)

"Inasmuch as this Board has already concluded that the attendance at the training sessions in this situation was not "service", we can and do embrace the conclusions of Award 20707 which held:

'In the instant case if the parties had intended that employees attending training classes * * * be paid at the penalty rate, they would have so provided in the Agreement. * * * * Since there are no specific Rules in the Agreement relating to compulsory attendance at training classes, we must assume that prior Awards of the Board are controlling and that such activity is not "work" or "service". Such training is obviously of mutual benefit to the Carrier and the employees * * * This Board is not empowered to write new rules and we do not find any current rule support for the claim herein'.

"Conclusions similar to this have been held by a plethora of Awards such as Third Division Awards 7577 and 20323 cited earlier in this Award. We are convinced that Third Division Award 8458, which was repeated with favor in Fourth Division Award 3309, contains the principle which is dispositive of this case. There we read:

'The issue involved in those cases is the same one we are asked to readjudicate now. The Board, as a matter of law and sound public policy, ought to adhere to the rule of res judicata. The law declares "The awards of the several divisions of the Adjustment Board . . . shall be final and binding upon both parties to the dispute . ." (Section 3 First (m)). This Board itself in Award 6935, (Referee Coffey), enunciated this sound policy when it said:

"If, as we maintain, our awards are final and binding, there must be an end some time to one and the same dispute or we settle nothing, and invite endless controversy instead".'

"If a different result is desired by either party, it should be achieved through negotiation rather than through repeated arbitration.

"It is the conclusion of this Board that the Claimants in the instant case are entitled to no additional compensation as requested in the Statement of Claim herein."

Public Law Board No. 5633, Award No. 42 (Moore)

"The Board has carefully examined the rule relied upon by the Organization and the well articulated arguments and citations submitted by both parties. The Board believes that the awards cited by the Organizations are factually distinguishable from the claim at issue. On the other hand, the Board finds that the decision which the Carrier cites involved the identical issue which is involved in the instant dispute. Award No. 12235 of the Second Division held:

'As this Board held in Award No. 12234, we read this Rule to apply only when the employee is actually performing work or service. There is no evidence Claimant performed any productive work as part of this class.'

"The Board finds no reason to reach a different conclusion than that reached in Award No. 12234 cited above. Attendance at a quality class is neither work nor service as contemplated by the Five Day Work Week rule. There is no agreement support for compensation at the overtime rate of pay for attending a quality class on an off day."