Form 1 NATIONAL RAIIROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8402
 SECOND DIVISION Docket NO. 8139
 2-SPT-CM-'80



Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)

Dispute: Claim of Employes:




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 or employesxildvolved 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.

This claim involves certain members of a relief outfit crew who returned to their home yard ahead of the crane assigned to their relief outfit and claim compensation until such time the crane returned to their home yard.

 The Claimants, based in Sparks, Nevada, were called for a derailment which occurred on October 10, 1977 at Hunter, Nev., some x+00 miles distant. Three of the eight members of the relief outfit crew left with the outfit. The remaining five members (Claimants) were transported by motor vehicle toward Hunter. While enroute to Hunter, the main line had been cleared of the derailment, obviating

 the need for the Sparks relief outfit and crew. The Claimants proceeded to Carlin, Nev. where their relief outfit had been stopped.
 Form I Award No. 8402
 Page 2 Docket No. 8139
 2-SPr-CM-'80

 At 7:00 A.M., October 11, 1977, the Sparks relief outfit with crew aboard was attached to a freight train and proceeded back to Sparks; however, upon arrival at Winnemucca, Nev., the crane of the relief outfit was set out in order to avoid delay to the train due to speed restrictions applied to the crane which would have resulted in the train crew tying up under the Hours of Service rule.

 A11 of the members of the relief outfit crew (including Claimants) excapt Carman G. Zibro rode from Winnemucca to Sparks aboard the relief outfit cars arriving at Sparks at 8:30 P.M., October 11, 1977. Carman Libro remained with the crane of the relief outfit at Winnemucca and returned aboard that crane on a freigh.train that arrived in Sparks at 10:00 A.M., October 12, 1977.

 The claim before us is for an additional 13k hours' pay at the applicable overtime rate October 11 and 12, 1977 to cover the additional time required by the relief outfit crane to return to Sparks.

 Citing the dictionary definition of "accompany" as to "go with", petitioner asserts that Carrier violated Rule 111(b) by not allowing the crew to accompany the relief outfit from Winnemucca to Sparks. Rule 111(b) reads:

Although it acknoul edges that on some previous occasions some of the crew members did not physically accompany the outfit, nevertheless asserts that in each of these instances all members of the relief outfit crew have been compensated for the same number of hours as those members who actually travelled with the outfit. This assertion, made in Petitioner's Ex Parte Submission, was not supported by substantive evidence furnished during the handling of the dispute on the property. By the same token, Carrier submitted no effective rebuttal.

 Carrier's position is that no service was performed by the relief outfit crew in connection with the derailment, the relief outfit equipment enroute to the scene of the derailment having been diverted before reaching the wreck site; that Carman Libro merely rode aboard the crane of the relief outfit which was handled into Sparks on a separate train; and that there is no basis for compensating the entire relief outfit crew until the arrival of the crane back to Sparks. Carrier insists that it complied with Rule 15, cited by Petitioner, by compensating Claimants from the time they were called until their return to their home point. Since no service was performed in this case, Carrier argues, "The time involved in this case amounted to travel time en route to a point where the outfit and crew were stopped and they proceeded back to their home yard". Rule 15 states, in part:


Form 1 Award No. 8402
 Page 3 Docket No. 8139
 2-SPT-CM-'80
outfit crews prior to return of their relief outfit equipment to its home base.
 As confirmation of its position, Carrier refers to the Official I nterpretations of
 the Rules of the National Agreement between the U. S. Rai rod Administration
 and the Employes represented by the Railway Employes' Department, issued in
 1920, which states:

We have reviewed the Awards cited by both parties and they go both ways on the question of whether wrecking crew members are entitled to compensation for the time between the departure of a wrecking outfit from the wreck site and its return to its yard when the crew members do not accompany the outfit on the return trip to home base.

 Carrier relies heavily on Second Division Awards 6323 and 6332. In the case decided by Award 6323, the wreck crew performed part of the rerailing work, after which work was suspended for several days because of hazardous conditions due to the derailment of chemical tank cars. When the work was suspended, the crew was sent home by highway vehicle and the wrecker outfits by freight train, the latter arriving several days after the crew. The outfits and crew returned to the scene of the derailment three days later, completed their work, and both crew and wreckers returned to their home station. The claim was made for the time during which the wrecking outfits remained at the scene of the derailment, after work was suspended; before returning to the home base. The Board denied the claim, stating:



The fact situation in Award 6323 is not applicable to that involved in the case before us.

 In Award 6332 the crew accompanied the outfit to the derailment. The crew was returned to headquarters by auto after completing their assigned duties. The claim was for the time between departure from the wreck site and the return of the wreck outfit to its yard, based on the following rule:


Form 1
 Page 4

 Award No. 8402
 Docket No. 8139
 2-SPT-CM-'80

 The Board denied the claim stating that the rule "does not provide for crews to accompany an outfit on a return trip."

 The Board, in Award 6332 also discussed Awards 5678 and 5784, sustaining awards which involved claimants who did not accompany the outfit going to and coming from a wreck or derailment site. Awards 5678 and 5784 were cited by Petitioner in the case resulting in Award 6332 and in the instant case.

"Award 5678 (Referee Ritter) sustained the claim citing awards involving time to a wreck site without discussing the question of the application of Rule 113 to the return trip. Award 5784 (Referee McGovern) sustained a claim also without considering the applicability of Rule 113 to the return trip."

 It must be pointed out, however, that Award 5784 did consider the return trip in its Findings in sustaining the claim:

 "The Organization 'Arguendo' states the wrecking crew must 'physically' accompany the outfit. The language of the rule is clear and precise and in the absence of mutually agreed upon interpretation by both parties means precisely what is says. The crew will accompany the outfit outside yard limits. This connotes the trip to the derailment and back to the home station. Compensabie time therefore should be from 7:00 A.M., the time of departure from Spokane to 7:00 P.M., the time of arrival back at Spokane . ..." (Underlining added)

 The Board, in Award 5678 sustained a claim that the Carrier had failed to permit Claimants to accompany the wrecking outfit while in transit to and from the scene of derailment outside of yard limits, citing "The overwhelming number of awards sustaining the Organization's contention in this case, ...". We are inclined to follow the Board's reasoning in this and similar cases and, therefore, we will sustain the claim.

 A W A R D

 Claim sustained.

 Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


By ,/
 R semarie Brgsch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of July, 1980.