Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9135
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9030
 2-L&N-CM-'82
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Rodney E. Dennis when award was rendered.
 ( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United. States
 Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada


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 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.

Claimant M. T. Robinson is a Cayman Committeeman on carrier's property in Louisville, Kentucky. On December 27, 1978, he attended a meeting with local Management and Union representatives. This meeting lasted approximately two hours. Claimant was docked two hours pay for attending this meeting. The organization alleges that Carrier violated the Agreement, specifically Rule 32(b) and Rule 36, when it failed to compensate him for time spent at the conference. Carrier contends that these rules were not violated and refuses to pay the twohour claim. Rules 32 (b) and 36 read as follows:



        32(b). All conferences between local officials and local committees will be held during regular working hours without loss of time to committeemen or employes represented."

Form 1 Award No. 9135
 Page 2 Docket No. 9030
 2-L&N-CM-'82

                          "RULE 36


                        Committees


        36. The Company will not discriminate against any committeemen who are delegated to represent other employes and will grant them leave of absence and free transportation subject to the provisions of Rule 4+."


The identical issue involving the same Organization and Carrier was the subject of Award No. 9017 (Vernon) adopted by the Board on April 14, 1982. We see no reason to deviate from that Award in this instance. The reasoning and rationale used to sustain the claim in Second Division Award No. 9017 apply equally as well to this case.

                          A W A R D


    Claim sustained.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Second Division

Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board
 .~---~ i
 By led
 ~~-z~! ._-~l'
 ~s marie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of June, 1982.

DISSENT OF CARRIER MEMBM

TO

AWARD 135, DOCKET 030

Referee Dennis)


The Majority's statement that the instant dispute involved an identical issue as decided in Award No. 9017 (Vernon) is incorrect and their reliance on such Award was misplaced.
 The dispute in Award No. 9017 concerned claims progressed on behalf of members of the local committee for attending an investigation regarding a constituent. The Board in Award No. 9017 sustains the claims on the basis of an asserted past practice of longstanding. On the other hand, the circumstances in the present case involved a situation wherein the Local Chairman requested a meeting with the Car Shop Manager to discuss a complaint regarding another employee. The Claimant, a member of the local committee, was asked to attend the meeting by the Local. Chairman, however, he was advised by the Carrier that he would not be compensated for such attendance. The factual situation in the instant case was more comparable to the situation under consideration in Award No. 9018 (Vernon) wherein the Board denied. a claim, on this property, made in behalf of members of the local committee who attended a meeting to discuss vacationing scheduling. As in Award No. 9018, the meeting held in the case at bar was not for the purpose of discussing claims and grievances as such terns are used in Rule 32(a) of the Agreement.
 The Majority in this case incorrectly chose to follow Award No. 9017 instead of Award No. 9018 which was more on point to the present dispute.

        Hence, we dissent:


                                  . M : Fagaa~K


                                            --T 10

                                  D. M fkow


                                  J ~,':Pason


                                    .

                                      '41 J*

                                      'Con,^~,*1'


                                  P. V. arga