Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7370
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7222
2-IC G-EW-'77





Parties to Dispute: ( (Electrical workers)
_ ..._ (



Dis te: Claim of Employer:





Findings:

The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier ox 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, 193+.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.



The claim is fox compensation for time spent traveling from Chicago on Sunday, the claimants' rest day, to a 5-day training session in Memphis, Tenn. for the purpose of learning to maintain Servo Hot Box Detectors. Claimants who are monthly rated Telephone P:Taintainers, were paid meals and lodging .for their rest day, but not compensation fox the travel time on such zest day. They were also paid a day's pay for each day of training.

The claimants traveled on the Sunday in question in a company car, which had been loaded prior to the end of their shift on the previous Friday with. various training materials to be used at the training school. En route to Memphis, they picked up another employee at E. St. Louis. Ill., who -was also attending the same classes. During the trip, they had a flat tire, which had to be repaired. The trip took about 14 hours.
Form 1 Award No. 7370
Pale 2 Docket No. 7222
2-ICG-Erg-' 77

The claimants axe the two employees based in Chicago; the record does not show any claim was filed by the employee based in E. St. Louis.

The issues before this Board are: (1) whether traveling to attend instruction classes is "service" as contemplated by the rules cited below; and (2) whether the claimants performed service on their rest day when they transported training materials in the company car provided fox their travel from Chicago to Memphis, where the training classes were held.

Carrier denied the claim on the basis that the claimants did no craft work that Sunday.

Petitioner cites the following rules as the basis for the claim of compensation at the time and one-half rate for this work:










Form 1 Award No. 7370
Page 3 Docket No. 7222
2-ICG-EW-177
"The regularly assigned road men under the provisions of
this rule may be used, when at home point, to perform
work in connection with the work of their regular
assignment.
Where meals and lodging are not furnished by the railroad,
or when the service requirements make the purchase of meals
and lodging necessary while away from home point,
employees will be paid necessary expenses.
If it is found that this rule does not produce adequate
compensation fox certain of these positions, by reason of
the occupant thereof being required to work excessive
hours, the salary for these positions may be taken up for
adjustment."
"Rule 10.B. Service rendered by an employee on his
assigned rest day, or days, will be paid for under
applicable call rules."
"OVERTIME'r
"Rule 4. For continuous service after regular working
hours, employees will be paid time and one-half on the
actual minute basis with a minimum of one (1) hour for
any such service performed."
"Rule 7. Men called back to work after leaving the
company premises will be paid time and one-half. for




Petitioner also claimed that the Carrier violated Rule 12 EMERGENCY SERVICE - ROAD WORK FOR MEN =LOYED, which states, in part:






Form 1 Award No. 7370
Page 4 Docket No. 7222
2-ICG-EW-r77
"Overtime during overtime working hours as provided by this
schedule.
B. WHILE TRAVELING:
Straight time from time of scheduled departure of train at
headquarters, to time of arrival at the point to which he
is ordered.
If employed at a point other than headquarters, straight
time from time of scheduled departure of train at point
employed, to time of arrival at the point to which he is


Claimants maintain that their regular assignment is to do work on the road, involving travel and pick-up and delivery of materials for the Carrier. The work done on that Sunday was regular work. The Telephone Maintainers bulletin requires applicants to have a license to operate a high-day vehicle.

Both claimants assert they were "ordered" or "instructed" to attend the training sessions by their supervisors and that they were told to travel on Sunday. One of the claimants states that he was told by his supervisor that he would be paid overtime (employee Exhibits Pfs, N).

As to whether the employees were ordered or volunteered, the Electrical Workers' General Chairman wrote to the Carrier: "The employees obviously 'volunteered' rather than be insubordinate when they were instructed to attend classes ...."

The Carrier's position is that training school attendance is not mandatory; that the claimants were offered training and accepted, and therefore have no claim to pay (citing Third Division Award 17791 (Q,uinn)). Further, the argument runs, compensation under the Agreement is due only for service which falls under the categories of work listed in the Classification of Work Rules for that craft. Travel does not constitute "service". The transport or training materials was incidental to the trip and does not constitute performing service. The employee-claimants performed no services in their craft for the Carrier on the Sunday in question. Rules 12 and 17, cited by Petitioner, are, therefore, not applicable, since they do not provide compensation for travel under arty circumstances -- only for services rendered or if required to work. Rule 12 deals with emergency road work and is not applicable to employees traveling to and attending classes. Second Division Award No. 626+ (Shapiro) is cited in support.
Form 1 Award No. 7370
Page 5 Docket No. 7222
2-ICG-EW-'77

The training materials transported were loaded and unloaded in the company car during working hours. Their transport cannot be construed as "service."

The carrier also stated that 20 employees have traveled to attend training classes, without filing claims.

Petitioner, Carrier, and Labor and Carrier members have cited numerous awards. The Referee has caref'zl7~y examined the Awards referred to him but finds they axe not applicable to the present case; they do not deal with the precise issue in the same context as before us in this instant case.

Absent specific provision ox rule in the relevant Agreement, there is established precedent that attending classes does not constitute "work" or "service" as these terms are used in the rules invoked. Hence, they do not give rise to a valid claim for payment under the applicable rules of the Agreement. The principle ox rationale underlying these Board decisions denying compensation is that attendance at training classes, and travel incident to such attendance, is primarily for the employees' benefit, to enable them to keep themselves qualified to perform the duties of their job.

There is no requirement in the Agreement between the parties that travel time is to be considered service or working time for purposes of compensation. Previous decisions by this Board have denied claims for compensation for attending classes, which attendance required travel to another city. See Second Division Award No. 026+ (Shapiro); Third Division. No. 10073 (Webster), 11567 (Sempliner), 1+181 (Dolnick), 1+182 (Dolnick). In Award No. 36, Public Law Board No. 1`790, the Board denied a claim for reimbursement for the expenses plus mileage incurred by the claimant traveling to and from the designated point set by the Carrier for a Book of Rules class.

It is true that in the case before us the claimants were required to travel a long distance, for a long period of time, on their rest day. But this is not determinative. (Third Division Award 1427 (Stone)). While it is also true that the carrier's auto used for such travel carried materials for use in the training classes, such transport was incidental to the travel to attend the training sessions.

This Board has strictly limited authority. We cannot make or amend a rule. Our function is to interpret the applicable Agreement provisions as they were drafted by the parties. We are bound by the terms and provisions of the _=agreement before us.


Form 1
Page 6

Claim denied.

Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

Award No. 7370
Docket No. 7222
2-ICG-EW-'77

A W A R D

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division




Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of October, 1977.