The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Harold M. Weston when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 76, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (Carmen)
CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY
The carrier submits that it is readily apparent that by the claim which they have presented the employes are attempting to secure through the medium of a Board Award in the instant case something which they do not now have under the rules and in this regard we would point out that it has been conclusively held that your board is not empowered to write new rules or to write new provisions into existing rules.
It is the carrier's position that there is absolutely no basis for the instant claim as it is in no way supported by past practice, schedule rules or agreements and we respectfully request, therefore, that the claim be denied.
FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
Claimants are members of a wrecking crew that was called from their home station at Tacoma, Washington, to clear up a derailment at Sutico, Washington. After all work had been completed on the derailment, they left Sutico for the return trip to Tacoma but, after proceeding about fifty miles,. the sixteen-hour law caught the operating crew and the train was held at Chehalis, Washington, from 7:15 P. M. to 4 A. M. the following morning. While at Chehalis, Claimants were permitted to go to bed if they so desired..
In Petitioner's view, Claimants are entitled to compensation for the time held at Chehalis since Rule 10(a) prescribes that an employe called for emergency road service away from his regular place of assignment be paid for waiting and traveling time. It is Carrier's position, on the other hand, that, the claim lacks merit because during their time on the road, Claimants were paid at least eight hours each calendar day and were "relieved from duty and' permitted to go to bed for five (5) or more hours". Carrier emphasizes Rule 10(b)'s provision that "such relief time will not be paid for" where those conditions have been met.
The ultimate question is whether "relief time" as used in Rule 10(b) can validly be applied to the present situation where all derailment work had been completed and Claimants were on their way home before the sleeping time in, question was given them. The great weight of authority that has passed on, that or substantially similar points is to the effect that rest period given after completion of wrecking work is compensable waiting or traveling time. See Awards 1028, 1048, 1078, 1355, 1429 and 4958. That some of the rules considered by these Awards differ in language from Rule 10(a) and (b) of the agreement here under consideration does not detract from the broad and clear principle that those authorities enunciate. In our opinion, they are not. unsound although we recognize that Award 1637 appears to hold to the contrary.
In the present case, Claimants were called to perform a specific duty, namely, to work on a derailment. After that duty had been completed, they-