Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9708
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9053
 2-SOU-CM-°83
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Gilbert H. Vernon when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the
 Parties to Dispute: ( United States 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 employs or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employs within the meaning o f the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.


The basic facts are not in dispute. On April 12, 1979, the Birmingham, Alabama wrecking crew was called at 10:00 A.M. to accompany the wrecking crew to clear a derailment at Edwardsville, Alabama. The wrecking crew with outfit cars departed Morris yard,in Birmingham, at 11:10 A.M. and arrived in Edwardsville at 6:15 P.M. The wrecking service was completed at approximately 8:30 P.M. on April 12 and the Claimants were transported to a motel for the night arriving there at 10:15 P.M. The next day, April 13, the Carrier's general foreman came to the motel, picked up the Claimants and returned them to Morris Yard by highway vehicle. They mere relieved from duty at 2:00 P.M. on the same day. The wrecking outfit arrived at Morris yard at 4:30 A.M. on April 14, 1979. The Carrier contends as a factual matter that it was impossible to return the wrecking outfit to Birmingham upon the crew's rest due to the high water condition and later due to the heavy train traffic problems after service was restored. Some o f these problems included crew shortages, blocked out passing tracks, constant traffic and constant traffic of waiting trains. The Claimants are requesting 14 and 1/2 hours pay at the time and one-half rate for not being allowed to accompany the outfit back to the headquarters point of Norris yard, Birmingham, Alabama.
 Form 1 Award No. 9708
 Page 2 Docket No. 9053
 2-SOU-CM-'83
The organization believes that 14-1/2 hours claim is justified under the agreement and long standing practice at Birmingham. They also note the same issue has been before the Board previously. Focusing on the word "accompany" they contend that the Board has consistently held that "accompany" means "to go along with someone or something." They believe that Second Division Award No. 4972 supports their position. This Award stated in part as follows:




They also cite Second Division Awards 5678, 7787 and 8402 which discounted Second Division 6332 cited by the Carrier. The Board stated in Second Division Award 8402:









Form 1 Award No. 9708
 Page 3 Docket No. 9053
 2-SDU-CM-'83
 "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



The Carrier cites, as mentioned above, Second Division Award 6332 which involved a four hour and thirty minute delay between the arrival o f the crew and the outfit. It stated in pertinent part:








Indeed there are awards involving identical and similar rules and circumstances that go both ways on the issue o f the wrecking crews' right to accompany the outfit to headquarter point on the return trip. For instance, in addition to Second Division Award 6332 cited by the carrier, attention is directed to Second Division Award 7664 which denied the portion o f a claim for the return trip home noting:
 Form 1 Award No. 9708
 Page 4 Docket No. 9053
 2-SOU-CM-'83
 "Insofar as the return trip to Saginaw is concerned, the Rule does
 not offer the same clear interpretation. It is thus incumbent upon
 the Organization to show that established past practice has been
 that the Crew so accompany the equipment; this has not been accomplished
 on the record. "
There are really two issues involved in this case. Does the wrecking crew have the right to accompany the wrecker on the return trip and 2) if they do, is the claim justified under the circumstances? In applying the divergent views reflected in the various cases cited to us, it is concluded first that generally speaking under the instant contract the employees at Birmingham have had a right to accompany the wrecker on the return trip. Further, if they do not accompany the wrecker they are entitled to be paid until the wrecker arrives. The Organization has claimed that this is the manner in which the Agreement has always been applied at Birmingham. There is no response in the record by the Carrier on this point. Thus, in this respect, the instant case is distinguished from at least Second Division Award 7664.
The Carrier argues, beyond the issue of whether the crew had a right to accompany the outfit, that the rule of reason must apply. In this case, they suggest they made a good faith effart to return the wrecking crew with the outfit. However, due to extraordinary circumstances the rule of reason prevailed and the Carrier saw it necessary and practical to transport the wrecking crew back to their home by automobile. Hypothetically and rhetorically they ask what if the outfit was destroyed, never returning home--would the employees then be paid forever? Further, they queried what about a case when the tracks might be washed out for a week or more?
In respect to the Carrier's appeal to the rule of reason, it is noted as it was above that at least one case, Award 6323, took this approach. However, the facts there are much different from here. Nor are the facts here similar, in terms of degree, to the Carrier's hypothetical examples. Chi the other hand, it is the judgment of the Board that the instant facts are close in nature for the purposes o f realistic application of the relevent rules to the cases cited by the Organization. These cases appear to be the prevailing view among neutrals who have been faced with such difficult questions. There fare the claim will be sustained.


    The Claim is sustained.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Second Division


Attest:
      Nancy J. r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 2nd day of November, 1983