Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 787
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7226
 2-S00-CM-'79



Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
 (
 ( Soo Line Railroad Company

 Dispute: Claim of Employes:



























                    February 5 12:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. 6 hrs.

                    Total 2Trs.


        Jerry Erickson February 1 8:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. 4 hrs.

                    February 2 12:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. 8 hrs.

                    February 2 8:OO.a.m. to 12:00 a.m. 8 hrs.

                    February 3 12:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. 8 hrs.

                    February 5 12:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. 8 hrs.

                    Total 32 hrs.

Form 1 Award No. 78+7
 Page 2 Docket No. 7226
 2-S00-CM-'7 9

        2. That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to additionally compensate the above-mentioned caxmen the above specified amounts of hours at the time and one-half rate of pay.


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 ox 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.

      Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.


On the 31st of January and the 1st of February, 197+, the claimants, carinen, who afire the regularly assigned members of the Harvey, North Dakota Wrecking Crew, worked a wreck at Fairmont, North Dakota. The crew tied up at Fairmont at 8:00 p.m. on the 1st of February after having completed work on the wreck at that point. On the following moaning at about 8:00 a.m., the claimants departed from Faixmont fox Fullerton, North Dakota, where they arrived the evening of the second and were put to rest at 8:00 p.m. until 8;00 a.m. the following moaning when they were put to work. The crew worked until 8:00 p.m, when they were put to zest. The claimants worked from 8:00 a.m, on the 4th until midnight when the work at the wreck site was completed and they were tied up for a zest. At 8:00 a.m. on the 5th hey were transported to a wreck site at Kulm, North Dakota.

 At issue is the time spent by claimants while being tied up after completion of the work at the Fairmont and Fullerton sites and before departing fox the Fullerton and Ku1m sites respectively.

 The particular rule in question is Rule Ten (10), particularly paragraphs 3 and 5 which read as follows:

          "3. If, during the time on the road a man is relieved from duty and permitted to go to bed five (5) or more hours between the hours of 10:00 o'clock p.m. and 6:00 o'clock a.m., ox during his normal rest period, if employed on other than first shift, such release will not be paid fox, provided that, in no case, shall he be paid for a total of less than eight (8) hours each calendar day, when such irregular service prevents the employee from making his regular daily hours at the home station.

Form 1 Award No.7847
 Page 3 Docket No, 7226
 2-S00-CM-'79
 "5. Wrecking service employees -will be paid under this
 Rule, except that all time working, waiting, or traveling
 on zest days and holidays will be paid fox at date of time
 and one-half, and all time working, waiting ox traveling,
 on assigned work days after the recognized straight time
 hours at home station will also be paid fox at rate of
 time and one-half."

 Ale the times that the claimants were put to zest from 8:00 in the evening on the 1st of February to 8:00 in the moaning on the 2nd of February and from 8:00 in the evening on the 2nd until 8:00 in the moaning on the 3rd and from 12:00 midnight on the 5th until 8:00 a.m. on the 5th waiting time so as to be compensable under .paragraph 5 of Rule 10 or zest time under paragraph 3 fox which no additional compensation is required?

 It is the position of the carrier that the assignment was multiple in nature and should be treated as a unit in considering whether the relief periods were compensable as waiting time. The awards furnished support both the position of the carrier and the organization on this .point.

 Award 2791 states that "This division is of the opinion that the zest provisions of the Rule were written in contemplation of a single protracted assignment. The Rule would undoubtedly have been phrased differently if it had been intended to permit sending a wrecking crew out on a yarigated group of assignments." Award 4958 ,reads in ,part, "However, the carrier contends that this case differs in that the claimants still had a wrecking service to perform before returning home, and that their active work had therefore not been completed. But the travel and waiting time between two wrecks is no different from that between a wreck and the home point. We therefore conclude that the claim should be sustained,"

 There axe several awards that hold that time spent resting after work has been completed on a wreck is properly "waiting time". See Awards x+931, 5172 and 6972. Award 6972 has certain dicta in it, however, that seems to indicate that if a chew is truly in need of zest, a bona fide rest period may be allowed.

 The carrier's position that the assignment to work on multiple wrecks is to be considered as a unit until work is completed is supported, among others, by Award 1637 which .reads in part, "The terminal points of the road emergency service covered by the Rule are the time of leaving and time of ,returning to the home .point." "The fact that emergency work may be done on different pieces of equipment at different times is not a factor in determining the Rule." Award 6133 quotes Award 1637 with approval and further states "The language of the Rule clearly implies that it was not intended to exclude multiple tasks."

 We find the reasoning of Award 6133 to be sound. There is nothing in the agreement that limits the carrier in its assignment of a wrecking crew
 Form 1
 Page 4

 Award No. 78+7
 Docket No. 7226
 2-S00-CM-'79

 to the performance of service at a single location. The assigrnnent of a wrecking crew to multiple tasks at various locations appears to be within the prerogative of the carrier.

 The issue to be decided then is whether the time the crew spent tied up while on the assignment was, in facts relief time such as was required to fit the crew to perform the balance of the assignment ox waiting time assigned fox the convenience of the carrier's schedule. The zest assigned by the carrier in the circumstances which gave rise to the instant case followed either an entire day of work ox travel. We do not find that the assignment of the zest time in this matter is unreasonable ox unwarranted when considered in relation to the work and travel schedules. We note that the employees have alleged that they were tied up by the carrier due to the requirements of the Hours of Service Act. The organization has offered no proof as to the relationship of the zest schedule and the requirements imposed on the carrier due to the Hours of Service Act.

 A W A R D

 Claim denied.

NATTONAh RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

      emaxi.e Bxasch - Adma.histxative Assistant


Dated 7t Chicago Illinois, this 21st day of February, 1979.