BRHSLIST
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [BRHSlist] You Rule on this one

To: <BRHSlist@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [BRHSlist] You Rule on this one
From: "Russell Strodtz" <vlbg@e...>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 09:58:38 -0600
References: <7d.344794e8.2b65f8b0@a...>
Reply-to: "Russell Strodtz" <vlbg@e...>
Leo,

I would prepare a declination. I he had been in Mendota and offered
to work on the weekend he would not have been entitled a deadhead.
That was a personal decision.

Paying the claim would also be a bad precedent. If he got paid the
deadhead what would protect the Company from timeslips from
people in Rochelle or wherever claiming the same thing or even
timeslipping for the trip if they were available and senior?

Russ
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <qutlx1@a...>
To: <brhslist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 26 January, 2003 20:51
Subject: [BRHSlist] You Rule on this one


> I need you guys to apply the schedule and all you've learned from the various 
> cases I've presented over these past few months to rule on how this case 
> should be resolved.
> "Boo Boo" Heitz is ordered to protect the open bid vacancy on #91/92 Mendota 
> to Denrock and return as Condr until the bids expire. In the middle of this 
> bid vacancy is a weekend and the job doesn't work on Sat or Sun so he D.H's 
> to Aurora on a passenger train on his own initiative. Someone finds out he's 
> home for the weekend and hes called to work a 2 round trip dinky on Saturday 
> and he works the job. He then D.H.s back to Mendota on Sunday to protect #91 
> on Monday.
> Is he entitled to a D.H. payment Mendota to Aurora and back to Mendota 
> because he worked the dinky?
> Leo 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 
> 



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>