should be paid the amount he would have earned in the event he had been permitted to make the trip. In this dispute, as in the instant case, the Organization contended that the Company was not returning the foreign district conductor by a direct rail route, i.e., the shortest route, as provided in Rule 38, paragraph (e). On the other hand, the Company took the position that the difference in mileage, both as to actual mileage and percentagewise, was insignificant.

In denying the claim the Board made reference to Award 5763, previously referred to and quoted in part in this ex parts submission, and stated as follows:

"We have taken cognizance of Award 5763, this Division, involving the same parties, cited by the Carrier, and also the case settled on the property, cited by the Employes, and the contentions of the parties in each case. It is apparent in both cases the mileage factor was taken into consideration in the application of Rule 38 (e). While some controversy exists between the parties with reference to the percentage of mileage, that is, whether it is so insignificant in fact that it would make no particular difference insofar as the direct route is concerned, as contended for by the Carrier, or as contended for by the Employes where there must be no leeway in percentage of mileage.

As stated previously in the opinion, Rule 38 (e) contains none of the factors contended for by either of the parties in this case. We believe that a reasonable interpretation of the rule requires us to hold that when Conductor R. C. Lansberry deadheaded from Denver to San Antonio by way of Dallas, Dallas was an intermediate point on a direct route. Rule 38 (e) does not specify the most direct route, or the shortest direct route. The hour of arrival in any event would be the same as shown by the record. We believe under the circumstances that Rule 38, paragraph (e), was substantially complied with by the Carrier."

CONCLUSION

In this submission the Company has shown that the assignment given to Conductor Ate to operate in service on a direct route to his home station was proper under the provisions of Rule 38, with especial reference to paragraph (e), Question and Answer 1. No provision of Rule 38, which Rule the Organization alleges has been violated in this dispute, prohibited Management from assigning a Seattle District conductor to Seattle by the route in question. Further, Awards 5763 and 6009 of the Third Division, National Railroad Adjustment Board, support the Company's position in this dispute.

The claim that Conductor Lattimore is entitled to be paid for the trip Chicago-Seattle is without merit and should be denied.

The Company affirms that all data submitted herewith in support of its position have heretofore been presented in substance to the employe or his representative and made a part of the question in dispute.

(Exhibits not reproduced)

OPINION OF BOARD: In this docket it must be determined whether or not the rule has been violated, which permits the use of a foreign district Conductor in a direct route toward his home station.

The routing from Chicago to Seattle via Denver appears to have been substantially longer both in point of time and of miles. Our findings rest on this substantial difference and we are of the opinion that in this instance there was a deviation from a direct route so great as to constitute a violation of ·`e rule.

AWARD