The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Harold M. Gilden when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION No. 71, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0. (Carmen)
DULUTH, MISSABE AND IRON RANGE
RAILWAY COMPANY
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Carmen L. W. Ruhnke, L. J. Green and L. F. Julin, hereinafter referred to as the claimants are employed by the Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range Railway Company, hereinafter referred to as the carrier. The claimants are regularly assigned employes on carrier's Missabe Division and their headquarters point is located at Proctor, Minnesota.
A vacation vacancy occurred at Missabe Junction in February 1968 and was filled by claimant, L. W. Ruhnke, on February 26, 1968. The following month another vacation vacancy occurred at Steelton which was filled by claimants .L. J. Greene and L. F. Julin. Claimant Greene worked at Steelton on March 4, 5 and 6, 1968; and claimant Julian worked at Steelton on March 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, 1968.
The carrier required the claimants to travel from their headquarters point to the point of their relief assignment outside of their regularly assigned hours but refused to compensate them for the travel time involved. However, the carrier did grant the claimants automobile mileage allowance for the
During the progression of this case on the property, the Employes have submitted statements signed by various carmen and various firemen and oiler employes. Two of the firemen and oiler employes who signed statements are Mr. Richard Kusch as claimant and Mr. Carl Schaumberg, local chairman. The latter progressed the claim on this property as local chairman, for travel pay for August 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31 and September 1 and 2, 1966. This claim was denied on final appeal on March 15, 1967 on tile basis that claimant Kusch bid for and was assigned to a regular vacation relief position, that the provisions of Rule 4, Allowances for Regular Vacation Relief Service, were applicable, and that Rule 12 (e) applies only when an employe is filling a vacation relief assignment other than regular. The carrier further stated on March 15, 1967 that Rules 4 and 12 have been applied in the manner stated since the making of the current agreem-_nt effective October 1, 1959. The Firemen and Oiler organization accepted the Carrier's decision and did not process the claim further.
In view of the foregoing, it is difficult to comprehend the contention of the employes that they have received travel pay as a regularly assigned vacation relief employe. It is quite possible that the employes who have afforded the organization statements in this case, were employes other than regular vacation relief einployes. Under such circumstances, Rule 12 (e) would be applicable and such employes would be allowed that which is p:,ovided therein.
In conclusion, the claims of the employes are without merit for the following reasons:
In view of all the facts and circumstances shown by the carrier, the carrier respectfully requests that your Honorable Boatd deny the claim of the employes.
FINDING ,S,: 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.
Travel allowances for employes regularly assigned to vacation relief service who are required to travel as part of their assignment (that being precisely the category in which claimants belong) are covered in Rule 4. Paragraph (b) thereof specifies that time in excess of one hour and thirty minutes consumed in actual travel, including waiting time enroute and waiting for shift to start, shall be compensated at the straight time rate of the job to which traveled,
The facts show that on the dates involved the time required by claimants to travel from their headquarters point to the outlying point at which they were to furnish vacation relief, was approximately twenty minutes. Since the time consumed in travel and waiting did not exceed one hour and thirty minutes, a cause of action is not present for payment of travel time under Rule 4.
The circumstances that Cas-rier has paid travel time pursuant to Rule 12 in instances where employes not regularly assigned to vacation relief temporarily fill a vacation vacancy, is not a relevant consideration in adjudicating the instant claim. Furthermore, it should be noted that a conflicting past practice, no matter how long endured, does not serve to alter or nullify clear and unambiguous contract language.