Robert Gerald Lambert - Comments

I object to the FRA interpretation that a DAY is a "calendar" day rather than a "24- hour" period, merely to promote administrative simplicity. The RSIA prohibits an employee from remaining or going on duty after that employee has initiated an on- duty period each day, for 6 consecutive days, unless such employee has had at least 48 consecutive hours off at the employee's home terminal. Interpreting the word DAY to mean a "24-hour" period would better comply with the intent of the law. For example, a regular assignment usually begins at the same time every day. Let's say that the employee begins work every day at 08:00. Under the "24-hour" interpretation, the employee would be entitled to 48 consecutive hours off after initiating an on-duty period for 6 consecutive "24-hour" periods. In other words, the employee would work Monday through Saturday, 08:00 - 16:00. At 16:01 on Saturday, the employee would be off for 48 hours and again available to initiate an on-duty period at the regular start time, 08:00, on Tuesday. In effect, the employee has been given 2 days rest, Sunday and Monday, 48 hours equating to two days. An employee who works irregular hours would also benefit from the "24-hour" interpretation. Under the "calendar" day interpretation, an employee at Needles, CA can realistically have 43 hours and 58 minutes rest between initiating an on- duty period on two consecutive "calendar" days. For example, an employee is called on-duty on Monday at 00:01 and ties up at 04:01. He is then called on- duty Tuesday at 23:59. This employee had 43 hours and 58 minutes rest between initiating two separate on-duty periods, yet he would still require 48 hours mandatory rest under the consecutive "calendar" day interpretation. The consecutive "calendar" day interpretation not only reduces an employee's wage /no work, no pay/ it mandates rest when rest is not required. Appling the consecutive "24-hour" period interpretation would ease the financial impact and only mandate "required" rest as intended under the RSIA. example The FRA interpretation of 6 consecutive days being a "calendar day" should be changed to "24-hour periods" to better comply with the intent of the RSIA. "Calendar" days will mandate unnecessary rest for employees working short pool assignments resulting in wage reductions. example Based on the FRA "calendar day" interpretation, I stand to lose a minimum of $12,000 per year on the Needles Short Pool. By changing the interpretation to "24-hour" period, I will maintain my wage and still get the required rest intended by the RSIA. example My short pool assignment lays in at the home terminal, on average, 24 to 30 hours. Yet under the FRA "calendar" day interpretation, I am still capable of initiating an on-duty period every "calendar" day leading to unnecessary mandatory rest and wage loss. Change "calendar" day to "24-hour" period. example The "calendar" day interpretation is not consistent with what you say is the "understanding of the industry." The Rail Industry works in miles and hours, not "calendar days." For example, a "Basic Day" is 130.0 miles or 8 hours; "Personal Leave Days" are granted in 24-hour periods. The "calendar" day interpretation will cause employees, whose work is based on miles and hours, to take unnecessary "mandated" rest, even after resting 24 plus hours between trips. This unnecessary rest will result in lost earnings, devastating many employees and their families. Change the DAY interpretation to a "24-hour" period to better comply with the intent and mitigate the financial impact of the RSIA.