NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: " . claim of the Order of Railway Conductors, Pullman System, for and in behalf of Conductor J. P. Lynch of the Pennsylvania Terminal District in which we contend that The Pullman Company violated miss 9 and 22 of the Agreement between The Pullman Company and its conductors, when-
The Organization made this claim a part of a controversy concerning changes in rules governing working conditions of Pullman conductors by including it in the subject matter of a strike ballot distributed on March 18, 1950, by the Organization to Pullman conductors.
The Pullman Company contends that (a) the trip between Philadelphia, the point at which PRR train No. 118 was turned, and New York City, the destination of the run, (during which period Lynch and his passengers were transported in parlor car and coach equipment) was service in regular assignment and was correctly credited and paid on that basis and (b) the QUESTION AND ANSWER STATEMENT COMPILED IN COLLABORATION WITH MR. WISE, dated January 14, 1946, supports the position of The Pullman Company.
OPINION OF BOARD: It is contended by the Organization that the real issue in dispute is the violation of Rule 9, Held-for-Service rule as interpreted by Awards 4007 and 4561. That at the time of the incident in question, Conductor Lynch of the Pennsylvania Terminal District, New York, held a regular assignment on PRR-Southern Trains 149-31 and 32-118 designated as Line 2606, New York to Augusta, Georgia and return. On
December 28, 1947, Train 32-118 was terminated at Philadelphia, and he was instructed to transfer his passengers to PRR Train 182, which he did, and proceeded to New York on Train 182, the Pullman cars in that train being in charge of a Boston District Conductor. Lynch was released from duty in New York at 10:20 A. M. December 28, 1947. The claim is for Heldfor-Service time New York, December 28 to 1:15 P. M. December 31, 1947 when he next went out on his regular assignment, for seven and one-half hours for each 24-hour period.
It is claimed that Award 4007 established the principle that performance of a regular assignment consists of the performance of the bulletined and bid-in job as normally operated; that under the circumstances here prevailing, he was required to perform that same work in a newly created section of the same train which resulted in using him outside his assignment. On the assignment under consideration, Lynch was neither on Train 32-118 nor was he in charge of cars in Line 2006, nor any other cars. That in other words, he was in incompleted regular service and under Q. and A. 9 to Rule 9, is entitled to Held-for-Service time as claimed.
It is further claimed that Award 4561 affirms the principle established in Award 4007 and the facts are contended to be on the same basis as those here prevailing, i.e., as the result of an emergency.
Carrier contends that claimant originally correctly recorded his time for credit for completing his regular assignment plus credit for his late arrival until actually released from service in New York on December 28, 1947. That on December 31. 1947, claimant submitted a supplemental time slip showing service from Augusta to Philadelphia and as having deadheaded on a pass from Philadelphia to New York, claiming 221% hours in being held-for-service. Carrier denies claimant was furnished a pass and that he deadheaded, Philadelphia-New York, contending that he operated through in regular service, Augusta-New York, and was properly paid the earnings of his regular assignment under Rules 6 and 20 for service performed December 27 and 28, 1947. That the Organization has not sustained the burden of proof necessary or sufficient for a sustaining award, citing Award 4011 with other awards of this Division. They also cite an understanding previously agreed to by the Organization under a similar factual situation, and Award 4441 involving the same type of incident and on the same date as the instant claim, and contend that distinguishing features prevail in this claim from cases considered in Awards 4007 and 4561.
It is contended claimant was in incompleted service and under Q. and A,9 to Rule 9, is entitled to held-for-service time as claimed. Award 4561 holds under facts there presented in an emergency situation similar to that here that credit for held-in-service time was the proper method of payment.
Award 4441, also a similar situation occurring on the same day, relates to claim of an extra conductor of the Philadelphia District and the contention is made that the controversy was solved by applying the Understanding of Parties, in question and answer form, dated January 14, 1946, to the effect that when trains are turned en route, both the conductor returning home and the outbound conductor will go with his passengers in coaches or parlor car to complete the run. Also, in brief, that any assigned Pullman operation should continue to and from its point of destination although the equipment in which it was assigned was stopped and turned en route.
Also cited is Award 6168 by the same referee (Wenke) where it is pointed out that instructions as per question and answer statement is not controlling as the same could be followed or disregarded. Also in Award 6316, the instructions are termed "unilateral" as simply an explanation or interpretation of rules.
Under the factual situation here presented, we do not believe Award 4441 is controlling here. The situation there differs from that presented here in that, in Award 4441, there was no ruling on Rule 9 as to whether or not the same was to be applied when the conductor reached his home station and by the nature of the facts therein, it could be construed as a run-around. However, Rule 9 was construed in Award 4561, and we said there:
On the factual situation presented here, we reaffirm the finding made in Award 4561- 6'624-4 258