ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS AND BRAKEMEN,
PULLMAN SYSTEM
In each of the cases cited above, the Board stated that each case of this. type must be settled on its own merits. The Company submits that the facts involved in the case at hand and a reasonable interpretation of the rules, including Rules 6, 7, 22 and 25, require a denial award.
In this ex parts statement, the Company has shown that the route on which Richmond Conductor Davis was operated on the assignment in question was a direct route toward the conductor's home station. Also, the Company has shown that awards of the National Railroad Adjustment Board support the Company in this dispute.
The claim that Conductor Sammons should be paid for a deadhead trip Detroit to Willard; for a service trip Willard to Washington, D.C.; and for a deadhead trip Washington back to Detroit under the Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Compensation for Wage Loss is without merit and should be denied.
All data submitted herewith in support of the Company's position have heretofore been submitted in substance to the employe or his representative and made a part of this dispute.
OPINION OF BOARD: Conductor R. C. Davis was regularly assigned to, the Richmond District. He arrived in Detroit in extra service on April 13, 1962 and was released from duty at 7:45 A. M. He was given an assignment the same day (6:15 P. M.) to deadhead to Willard, Ohio, on B&0 train No. 20 and to perform extra service from Willard to Washington, D. C. on a Special train. His destination trip was to Washington, D. C., which is 113.5 miles from Richmond.
Claimant was a Conductor regularly assigned to the Detroit District. He arrived in Detroit in deadhead service from Ashland, Ohio, on B&O trains 54-384 in the evening of April 13, 1962 and was released from duty on 5:00 P. M. that day.
Petitioner contends that the Company violated Rule 38 (e) when it assigned Conductor Davis to perform service to Washington, D. C. and requests that Claimant, who was available and ready to perform the service, be paid for a deadhead trip Detroit to Willard, for a service trip Willard to Washington, D. C., and for a deadhead trip Washington to Detroit.
There is no question that the Company had the right under paragraph (e) of Rule 38 to use Conductor Davis, a foreign district conductor, out of Detroit if he moved "in a direct route toward his home station or to a point within a radius of 50 miles from his home station." The assignment to deadhead to Willard, Ohio, and to perform extra service from Willard to Washington, D. C., was not such a direct route within the meaning of Rule 38. The B&O railroad does not go to Richmond. Willard, Ohio, is not an intermediate point which is on a direct rail route to Richmond. The C&0 railroad is a direct rail route from Detroit to Richmond. Davis could have been used on the C&O or on any other railroad to any intermediate point which is on a direct route to Richmond. This was not done. Washington, D. C., is 113.5 miles from Richmond.
The fact that the mileage between Detroit and Washington is less than the mileage between Detroit and Richmond is immaterial. The essential criteria is whether or not Davis was used in service on direct rail route to Richmond or from an intermediate point on such a direct rail route. The record shows that neither of the two prerequisites were met.
Award 5763 (Smith) merely holds that the Carrier was not obliged to use the rail route with the least mileage. Chicago was just as much an intermediate point on a direct rail route as St. Louis. In Award 6009 (Messmore) we held 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." A similar issue was adjudicated in Award 10788 (Mitchell). In that case a foreign district conductor was used in service from Washington, D. C.,. to Seattle via Indianapolis. The Organization contended that the direct rail route was from Washington, D. C. to Chicago via Pittsburgh then to Seattle. This route would have been 104 miles less than the miles traveled by the foreign district conductor. We properly held that mileage is "no significant deviation from the most direct route." None of the cited Awards are applicable to the facts in the current dispute.
The Company also argues that the first class railroad fare, exclusive of tax, was the same over the C&0 Railway and the B&O-RF&P Railroads. This. too, is irrelevant. Rule 38 is not concerned with cost factors.
On the basis of the facts in the record, we are obliged to hold that the Company did not comply with the terms and conditions of Rule 38.
There is no denial in the record that Claimant was available and willing to work the run assigned to foreign district conductor Davis.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;