NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Form 1 SECOND DIVISION Award No. 12636
Docket No. 12354
94-2-91-2-159
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Elliott H. Goldstein when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood Railway Carmen/Division TCU
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(CSX Transportation, Inc. (former Chesapeake &
(Ohio Railway Company)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"l. That the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Company (CSX
Transportation, Inc.) (hereinafter 'carrier') violated the provisions of Rule 12 of the Shop Crafts
Agreement between Transportation Communications
International Union -- Carmen's Division and the
Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Company (CSX Transportation, Inc.) (revised June 1, 1969) and the
service rights of Carmen T. Fisher, J. Roark, F.
Lavenia and D. Grissom (hereinafter 'claimants')
when the carrier did not allow the claimants
compensation for actual expenses incurred for their
lunch and dinner when the claimants were sent to
outlying point in violation of Rule 12 of the Shop
Crafts Agreement.
2. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to be
compensated $12.03 each for the actual expenses
incurred for their lunch and dinner as provided for
under the provisions of Rule 12 of the Shop Crafts
Agreement."
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, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over
the dispute involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing
thereon.
Form 1 Award No. 12636
Page 2 Docket No. 12354
94-2-91-2-159
On December 3, 1988, Claimants were sent to Scottsville,
Virginia, to replace a 70 ton roller bearing on open top hopper car
CO 141119. The instant claim is $12.03 each for lunch and dinner
expenses incurred. In support of its position that this claim
should be sustained, the Organization cites Rules 12 and 10 of the
Agreement, which provide as follows:
"Rule 12--Effective June 1, 1923. (a) Employes sent out
to temporarily fill vacancies at an outlying point or
shop, or sent out on a temporary transfer to an outlying
point or shop, will be paid continuous time from time
ordered to leave home point to time of reporting at point
to which sent, straight time rate for straight time
hours, and rate and one-half for overtime hours, whether
waiting or traveling. If on arrival at the outlying
point, there is an opportunity to go to bed for five
hours or more before starting work, time will not be
allowed for such hours.
(C) Where meals and lodging are not Provided by the
comnanv actual necessary expenses will be allowed."
(Emphasis added)
"Rule 10--Effective June 1, 1923. (a) An employee regularly assigned to work at a shop, engine house, repair
track, or inspection point, when called for emergency
road work away from such shop, engine house, repair track
or inspection point, will be paid from the time ordered
to leave home station until his return for all time
worked in accordance with the practice at home station;
and for waiting for traveling, rate and one-half for the
recognized overtime hours and straight time for the
recognized straight time hours at home station.
Where meals and lodging are not provided by railroad,
actual necessary expenses will be allowed."
It is axiomatic that the moving party must sustain the burden
of proof. See, First Division Award 23889: Second Division Award
12011; Third Division Award 28338. That burden rests on the Organization in the case at bar. Our review of the record, however,
indicates that the Organization has not met its evidentiary burden.
Rule 12, cited by the organization, does not apply to the work
performed by Claimants on December 3, 1988. Claimants did not
"temporarily fill vacancies" nor were they sent on a "temporary
transfer" to Scottsville, Virginia. Therefore, there was no
violation of the Rule.
Form 1 Award No. 12636
Page 3 Docket No. 12354
94-2-91-2-159
By the same token, the organization's reliance upon Rule 10 is
unpersuasive. Rule 10 is predicated upon situations where regularly assigned employees are "called for emergency road work away
from" their point of assignment. The Organization in this matter
failed to prove that an emergency existed. Absent probative
evidence of a contractual violation, this claim must be denied.
A WAR D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest:
Catherine Loughrin Interim Secretary to the Board
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 12th day of January 1994.