Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD AD_11STMENT BOARD Award No. 6607
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
6395
2 AT&SF-SM-'73
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Edmund W. Schedler when award was rendered.
( Sheet Metal Workers' International Association
(
Parties to Dispute:
( The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
( -Eastern Lines-
Dis2ute : Claim of Employes:
1. That the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company violated the
current agreement when they failed to compensate Sheet Metal Workers
J. A. Nelson.,' R. F. McIntyre and W. T. Ross for transportation expense.
2. That accordingly the carrier be ordered to compensate Sheet Metal
Workers J. A. Nelson, R. F. McIntyre arid W. T. Ross in the amount of
($15.20), ($7.48)
and ($'.5.14) respF-~ivply.
Findings
The Seccnd Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and
the evidence, finds that:
The carrier qr 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.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
This grievance involved the question of whether or not the Carrier is
contractually required to reimburse employees, who are working away from their
home station, their transportation costs to return home on weekends. There were
3
separate claims presented; the
3
claims involved identical merits, and the parties
agreed the
3
claims would be disposed of in one award.
Claimants had a headquarters point of Newton, Kansas and were assigned,
at various times, to work in LaJunta, Colorado. When there was no work assigned on
their rest days they returned to their headquarters point, and they returned
"on time for work" at LaJunta when their next work day began. The relevant
provisions of the Agreement were:
_ Form 1 Award No.
6607
V
Page
3
Docket No.
6395
2-AT&SF-SM-' 73
The Carrier cited numerous awards to support their position. This award
will dispose of the logic presented by those awards.
In Public Law Board 970 the relevant language stated:
"When the majority of the employees in a crew elect, and conditions
permit, they may make week-end trips to their homes .... When such
trips are made, free transportation will be furnished."
This award cited award
19138
and denied the claim.
In Award
19138
the relevant language of the Agreement stated:
"When such trips are made, free transportation will be furnished."
In 19138
the Board was not persuaded that the presence or absence of the words
"consistent with regulations" were germane to the proper interpretation of the rule
and the Board followed the line of cases previously decided.
In Award
16745
the relevant language stated:
"Free transportation wi'11be furnished consistent with regulations."
is award went along with the logic of awards 2786 and 12351 and held that there
was nothing in the rule that required the Carrier to use other than the Carrier's
trains.
Basically the awards cited by the Carrier rely upon the interpretations
of Awards 12351 and
2786.
In Award 12351 the relevant language was in rule 26(a),
to wit
"Rule
26.
Week-End Trips
(a) Employes assigned to camp cars will be free to make weekend trips
to their homes when requirements of the service will permit. Free
transportation consistent with regulations will be furnished. When
camp cars are located at points where passenger trains are not stopped,
motor cars or Company-owned trucks, if available, may be used to get
employes to points where trains do stop, provided the employes will
cooperate and this is satisfactory to a majority of the employes in
EL
gang . _
The Board noted in the award
12351
that the critical sentence was foJSowed
by additional language that made it clear that the free transportation was that;
transportation available on the Company's trains because a method was provided to
take employees to stations where passenger trains stopped. No such qualifying
language appears in the instant grievance.
-- Form 1
gage 5
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad A djustw nt Board
Award No.
660'l
Docket No.
639'5
2 AT&SF-SM-'
73
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
By /_
Rose rie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago) Illinois, this 10th day of December,
1973.
a
C11~,i:I;;:? :.~i_~i,;~,1:c~ DI-aJ;wT `i0 A:;AED tdO. 6007
r -~r r r
, . z c~
~.1 - _-, i
1i,' i:
(' I .'
i , C KE
l f>.
;-i;,~ t,__.6_ 1 i._,)~
In arrivin? at such a-n unreasonable conclusion, tjie
referee demons trate·-i convincingly . th^t
?vie
did not -inderstand
the principle underlyiri- the central rule involved; the lone
st;a.zd:in
practice
tnereiinder; am: the sound, well- reasoned
,.
precedent almods Sari ich were rendered by cori:petent and able
referees who denied all similar cases which were progressed to
this Board.
In his Award the referee stated: -
' ":: :. *F)r past 48 to 50 years monthly-
rated employees assi,-;Red to road i-,;o_^k were
allowed free transoor tat ion home on weekends
on the Carrie-Is trains in
accord
:nee with
the Carrier's rules =:nd regulations.
.. :;,"
"::
., :::It eras conclusively shokim*in the
sub.-A.-Is ion that f'on man,r_ years the 'free
_transoortation_nrov;_dedt
w·
s transY);)rt.qti.an cm
the c_;arrier's trains I_± _ar);)ea_s_,;1-1~ ; s-nee;
the C; ar ~-i - ., ,..~- ec~ui»~;~z t;o noti ,:;~ free
flo'e_1p~ t
17_ l ;Ir,~,o
h:~
~,J~` _~.·-c-_
C
Based
on
tine foro~oin7, uo to this point the referee was
~.
`, n
obv ioti. sly a.-: are o.> an:a under st0
nr:
th the only free
trap-._
Aorta tion" referred
to in Rule 1,' (f)
was on Ca. rier or:,ned and
onOrated trains.
The referee havin;., established
the
foregoing stated:
";'.-'.::,it
was also undis;)l:ted that the
"a:r,e°
icr
discontinued all
passeraF-r trait se-vice on Way 1,
19?1 ~rhen passen~;er operations beca,ne the
responsibility of the
national Railroad Pass enter
Corpo-,ration.;. ,. ,. ,"
In othu^ words,
the
referee agreed
that the Santa Fe (Carrier
in case) no longer had any control over passc:nge., trains opr:rating
over its tracks. It was at this point that the referee sr-ould
have f'ollow(d ttie sound ,)r inei:pf_e that a. i;~,r^:Ler is o,zly free
to f=rant that :;t)ic;l is
within . its control to g-ant its ernployes -
such pr-ins i.:)le being
laid dU~,n'1
by t't=is F`oa-d
i.'1
sound D:'eceder-t;
awards of tii:~ Third Division, i.n. `?'786, 1??)51, 167/15, 1-138;
Public La<,.~ ?3)ard 970 (:'_S v. k'%iilvraukee iicad), and Second
Division Award to. 658B.
a
f.w,A
The referee, in referrin- to Award No. 65.gF3, further
compounded his basic
error in sustaining this claim when he
stated: `
":; ., ;,'· The
.,.,ord '~anted' was used and it is
clear that the Carrier eras'giving) transportation
"to the individ.,Lzals involved. _In the irsta_nt
..l~rieyance`(`~C`C~r_^t 6395) there w~ls
r1;-)thiC1.c°
to show
_ n·
r ; r
1 r .~-·
the Garri!.^ _; =i;: ' iv. ;~ a.;~ ri=:e tr,n;;nort~ition
in rule 14(f) ." (Underlining ours) .
In this respect the referee ~.';as correct and he should
have denied the clai instead of bringing his own distorted brand
of- industrial justice to this board based on what he mis takenly
stated was a 'quid pro quo" within Rule 14(f).
The record in this
case cle-3rly revealed that
at no
time had the carrir:r ever paid "personal expenses . . . at
the home station" and the employees completely failed to show
otherwise. Therefore, to holy
that since claimants
were not
entitled to pe»sonal expenses while at ho.-=a
station durin"
the
weekend they were entitled
to
free transportation, or rather
reimb,a_nsemUnt for sale' on a passen?,ex' t^ain
not
o,-:ned or
controlled by Carri er, torou,hly defies sound logic as '.;ell as
the able
C'C;aSUninf?
1n the
orecedent
denial
aw'~rds previously
citod herei11.
Since the award is so patently erroneous and in
such complete discord ,.,.,i-th the sound. well.-re:?soned precedential
avrards previously referred to herein it becomes a "maverick"
award and is of absolutely no value relative to precedent.
For the foregoing reasons we dissent.