Form 1 NATIOTU-Tj RAILROAD ADJUSTI41??1'L' BOARD Award No. 7787
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7704
 2-L:,'-N-CM-' `79

Parties to Di.s gate:
Dispu.t~ Claim of Em§±±11es:
( System Federation No. 91 , Railway Eyployeo'
 ( Department, A. f. of L. - C. I 0.

( Louisville and Nashville Railroad Conpany

 (1) That the Carrier violated the terms of the Agreement when the
 Etowah, Tennessee Wrecking Crew Ye.'rribers B. R. Crofts, D. R.
 Curtis, T. L. Edwards and C. E. Moses were relieved of their
 wrecking assignment by being taxi cab(-,,d to Etowah from the
 vrrechin& outfit, a.r,°itr':;. ?; at 6:00 A.M., September 13, 1976, and
 the remainder of the Etowah Wx'f'CT_1Y!g Crew, C. E. Schrock and
 T . E . King, re is°;,tox2ed 'GO Etowah with t3'1<. Wrecking outfit, ar,t iv7_r!,~
 at 1+: 00 P. m. and were relieved at 5: 30 P. I'd. , Se, 'l,o_?ioe,r 13, ,_~'1;~,
 and ._

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

 The carrier or carriers and the e:rploye or c:rn.ployos involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and en:.ploye 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.

The situation giving t:-use to this d.i s.pute -j-.- as follo-us. Claimants
 were called, for.' a ders,ilrle:,~'fr outside yard li_mi't;s® After the wx'echin~,r
 aSsJ_gt1'C1C'ITG v:ctS CCZ:iT'.?IFTcd, "1a1.':l'3.Z?ts of -the wrccking crew) Were riot;
 pe,rzn:i_tted to acco:!n~-~:.:Zy the z:rrockin~; outfit '(:o home station but were returned
 t0 home St:%:i:iUYl by U;.=.1CLt~(lr `I'1_1F.;.j' were Y'Gi:naf3C) e:..'[: home station at 6:00 uciIi.
 The w:recking m:it.Clt za:i i,h t,,-,,o other c t_ e;r znembo-ru L<xv9_veci at the home
 station and :-,-ere relieved from duty at r ,< v.-·.,.,wt~ date. The,
 j:30 't~a_F·ra_F ~rz the _
 claim _s for the amount :Lc.>_, as a res_?lv of not be-Jag to F,'.Cco·npran:y
 the outfit to hnrr.e station; icee, 3 ):roll.rs and 30 minutes at time and ane
 ha1_:f
 Foam 1 Award No. 7787
 Page 2 Docket No. 770+
 2-L&Td-CM-' 79

 The Employees rely primarily on Rule 108 or the Agreement, captioned
 "Wrecking Service - Use of Regular CL'GVT", the first sentence of which
 1 ead.s



Carrier, -in denying the claim., cons"L:.~u.es lvzl.e 1.08 as ::,~ar..ing that "the assigned cnwvr will accompany the wrecker outfit to a wreck or derailment outside of yard limits, bob after the wreck or derailment has been cl^a.xed the rule is s:i.lei::~; on the return 'tz°1:(~, since the vrxeck ox
 ,,
 d.exw..ilT:lent cT!.1er? -:CnC;;r is over."
xnewbe:rs to xe::.-vin with the vrz°cck`~x' ai`i;=~r the dera.:i.Lment has been clet!,x'ed.
 and th~c wrecker is no long°el° heeded...needed.... it would be uarcasonable to hold
 ervpla;.- :es au duty when Thai )' servier_ , are riot needed,"

 ibis issue !n;Tolo 7_n the same parties, has been before this Mand at least three times. In each case tit:LS Mat^d. sustained the claims for Ve time the wr~echia~- t0 the liO:~.e :point. See Second Division Awards 3='j9, 3936, and 4666. see also Second Division l`:,vr~a,xd 5784 on a 1a.ave dispwte or, another ,;:~ailxoad.

 Precedent As,;~.rds, particularly between the same parties, should be followed unless found clearly erroneous. Given effirmative decisions in previous Awa,z°de involviLng the same panties, we m:zst consider the issue presented in the instant case to be a settled question, at least on the s property. Any c>t'rer standard would 1(~ad to chaos. See Second 1,1ivisi',-on Awards 2021, 3991, 5217, 67_09 and a>5'+3, and Fourth Division Anand 3443,

 Carrier alleges that interpretation zras placed on a like r -ale by the United States Railroad Administration in 1920. Carrier also cites Second Div:i.sion Award 6332 (T~,T:illi ams ) .

 With respect to the 1920 inter°rxevation, it should be fainted out ti!u,~'t Rule 108 was negotiated land; after that date and that Rule lOS has been interpreted at least three tames by this Board in favor of the t~.'nplayee;' position ( Avrax ds 3259, 3936, and x+,566 ) m

 The language of the Rule in^voll~ea in Award 0332, ci':ed by Carrier, Ets well as 121 the a_11.tCrpIE-'twt1.0?.1 issued iii 1920, differs fY'C'-n the language of the relevant .rule in the case before us. The rule in the cases cited by Cartier reads: Wen wxecl::~_r~ c2e;rs -are called for wrecks .... (utnder- lin:i_rzg added), 1W le 108 of the apm.'i ica,,1>le ~`.gree:.,c-rit in tire instant case reads, as quoted earlier: "For W,Y'C:C'.h5 an derU,:1l?nc~:Y:i.S,..." (i7i1Cic::'l:!r1ir1; added) . i h ll;s , the L'-?.;:eS C:1'i;r~Ct by Carr--, E1.' are not,
 ^,r;)';? ~ :LC:~Lb1E:, S7_ _!CE; ~l'-°=-,.r deal vrith different lan_;,a.cand dlfi'uz'cnt factual si.iua.ta_ons. I-Pcecede::!t Awards on this property sup.po)~Tt the Tinplay ees t position.
 Form 1 Award No. 7787
 Page 3 Docket No. 770+
 2-L&uI-CM-' 79

 Carrier furthet a~s.eges that Rule:: 1C`j and 11 Were not cited or, the
 pro.per,ty and :..ust be disretc;a:rdo d by oht 8oaxd. 2'1_4.'t allegation does not
 stand.. Rule 108 was wiola'tcdN Rules .!_C'j and 17. zTOre cited to su.rmort the:
 ar.,rnzrit of damages claimed. _~u=v't,he~r<or~, thc: 1?. x°eerserxt :is altr~;...s before
 the 1)41Y''l`.:LC:S. It 7_N Zv'c:il K'es.CW`'-,'n'!ZE:d 'til?:'t the ITl~.°aY1'!Yi,; and 1.ntcn'. Of ti?c'
 par-tic.s must be gleaned ",ron the entixe Aa,ree_n'erA. 'f;hat the Agreanent rr_'ust,
 be read as a 'sshaa_e, and 'cllat -we xzav :LoiK. 'Lo othc,.r I:'ulcs in the app
1!.c;xee::ien'i; as tiz:~y tra~y bean ti;~oz1 and F':ihr'o ^:~aning to RLLLes c;_ted by ;;1)e
 Tj :3, xt :i.es :in their e7:i_scuss:ion,~on the l:v~::~::.'~-"~y and in their submiss ions to
 this Board. _

 Fox all or -L-.he %I)ovF-. reasons., v,e r:u;;t ccnclu_:3e that the cla~.~! should be granted.




                          By Order of Scco:~d Dj~r4 ssozl


Attest: I!;}.ecu-t:ivc: Secretar,r
 Tdatiorj~.,'l. :a:i_1s°oa.d Adjustament Board

          :-Y y

          °`~


Y :~_. _ _~ _.. ___"'~_.``
                    ._ ~;t_y a_:; zr~ ` _~t~;,Yrt

                    s

..p'eOrR0qaSna,ma Di'4p v'i1 _` S1~J11._~.n~ qN Ll. ~C~nlr. I l 1 'Ws~

 T)ated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of January, 1979.

 I

CARRIER MESS' DISSENT

TO

AWARD N0. 7787, DOCKET N0. 7704

Referee Weiss)


        It was stated in the Findings in Award 7787:


        "Carrier alleges that interpretation was placed on a like rule by the United States Railroad Administration in 1920 , ' Carrier also cites Second Division Award 6332 (William s).


        "With respect to the 1920 interpretation, it should be pointed out that Rule 108 was negotiated long after that date and that Rule 108 has been interpreted at least three times by this Board in favor of the Employees' position (Awards 3259, 3936, and 4666).


        "...Thus, the cases cited by Carrier are not applicable since they deal with different language and different factual situations. Precedent Awards on this property support the Employees' position."


        The majority failed to grasp the issue involved in the case to be


decided. Carrier had called the Board's attention to the fact that Awards
 3259, 3936 and 4666 covered an entirely different issue. In each of those
 cases the issue was whether Rule 108 entitled the assigned wrecker crew
 to accompany the wrecking outfit (or soave of the equipment from the
 wrecking outfit) to which it was assigned when such equipment was used on
 territory usually protected by a wrecking outfit and assigned wrecking
 crew from another station. Claims were sustained in behalf of the
 assigned wrecker crew; however, in its Award 3936, the Board specifically
 excluded the time the wrecker was delayed in returning to its yard after
 the derailment emergency was over.
 In the case before the Board in Award 2787 the assigned wrecker
 crew was used; the issue in question was whether carrier was required -to
                                            .


                      - 2 - DISSENT TO AWARD 7787


compensate the claimants for the time between their arrival at home station and the time the wrecking outfit itself arrived in its yard.
 Carrier Members are at a loss to understand how the majority concluded that the 1920 interpretation and Second Division Award 6332 should be rejected. The issue involved and the agreement provisions were identical to the case in Award 7787. The only variance in the issue was the mode of transportation for the claimants - is the 1920 interpretation, they were transported to home station by passenger train, in Award 6332

 by automobile, and in Award.7T87 by taxi. Rule 108 before the Board in
 Award. 7787 reads:

 "For wrecks or derailments outside yard limits, the regular assigned crew will accompany the wrecking outfit."

 Rule 158 involved in the 1920 interpretation, and Rule 113 before the Board in Award 6332 are identical. Both read:

 "When wrecking crews are called for wrecks or derailments outside of yard limits, the regular assigned crew will accompany the outfit. " The Majority erred when it concluded that different sentence construction constituted different language. If the rules were written in the same sentence construction, they would read:

        UN Rule 108 (Award 7787): The regular assigned crew will accompany the wrecking outfit for wrecks or de- railments outside yard limits.


        Boston & Main Rule 113 (Award 6332) and Rule 158 involved in the 1920 interpretation: The regular assigned crew will accompany the outfit when wrecking crews are called for wrecks or derailments outside of yard limits.

DISSFW TO AWARD 7787
The latter rule does not give carriers the option of calling the regular assigned crew when the wrecking outfit is called; they have the option of calling the wrecking outfit, as does the L&N. In Award 6332, the referee stated in the findings that, although the carrier did not have the option of calling the regular assigned crew -to accompany the wrecker to the wreck or derailment, it did have the option of relieving them after completing the assignment for which called. The Board held:

 "Rule 113 does not provide for crews to accompany an outfit on a return trip. The Board does not have the authority to add to, alter or modify a contract." In the 1920 interpretation, it was held:
 "It was not the intent of this rule to prohibit sending wrecking crew to home station by passenger train in advance of the wrecking outfit." In reaching its conclusion to sustain the claim before the Board in Docket No. 7704J. the majority felt no restraint in its authority to add to contract provisions. After Federal control ended in 1920, carmen on this property had no rule which required carrier to assign them to wrecking crews. A rule was negotiated effective June 1, 19+2 to provide that carmen would be assigned-to wrecking crews and that the assigned wrecking crew will accompany the wrecking outfit for wrecks and derailments outside yard limits. The rule negotiated at that time has never been revised and appears today as Rule 108. If it was the intent of the parties to prohibit sending the assigned crew to home station in advance
 DISSENT TO AWARD 77$7
of the wrecking outfit after the emergency was over, such language was not included in the rule. The passage of time did not make the 1920 interpretation any less sound.
 While the crew involved in the case before the Board on which Award 7787 was rendered returned to home station by taxi only three hours and 30 minutes before the wrecking outfits there are many instances where the wrecking outfit and assigned crew work continuously for many days to clear a main line derailment. After the derailment is cleared and the main line is open, because of the slow speed at which the wrecking outfit is capable of traveling, the wrecking outfit is oftentimes placed in a nearby siding for the time necessary to permit movement of trains that were held at each side of the derailment due to the blockage. Sometimes, due to the length of the blockage, it may take 48 hours to clear up congestion caused by the derailment.
 There is no agreement rule which requires carrier to leave the crew members who have regular assignments at the home station to protect, with the wrecking outfit and pay them continuously for exorbitant hours when there is no further wrecking service to be performed. Even Rule 11, which governs how employees will be paid for emergency road work, including wrecking service, permits carrier to relieve employees for rest without pay while they are engaged in such service, so long as they are paid at least eight hours for each calendar day. The new rule the Majority has attempted to write for wrecking crews after completing emergency work would require carrier to pay such employees continuously for 24 hours per

 calendar day for resting.
 DISSENT TO AWARD i'787
The railroad industry has spent vast sums of money to escape from "featherbedding" rules and work practices such as this; and in rendering this erroneous award, the Majority has attempted to write a new featherbedding rule for wrecking crews.
 There are no precedent awards on this issue on this property. Award 7787 does not address itself to the issue involved, and Carrier Members vigorously dissent. The issue remains in dispute.

G~&

G, H. Vernon

 Go~ n
 i
    V


    /.1 son


B, K. Tucker

 P, V.· arga