NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Wesley Miller, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the
Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed and refused to reimburse B&B employes J. J. Russell, L. C. Truhlicka,
H. D. Hoffman, H. Kulhanek, Jr., C. R. Keeler, J. R. Haskell and
Paul Jueneman for noon day meal expenses incurred on October 6
and 7, 1964, while away from their headquarters by direction of the
Carrier.
(2) The Carrier now be required to reimburse the claimants for
the aforesaid noon day meal expenses as follows:
Name Date Amount Total
J. J. Russell 10/6/64 $1.50
J. J. Russell 10/7/64 $1.55 $3.05
L. C. Truhlicka 10/6/64 $1.50
L. C. Truhlicka 10/7/64 $1.40 $2.90
H. D. Hoffman 10/6/64 $1.40
H. D. Hoffman 10/7/64 $1.35 $2.75
H. Kulhanek, Jr. 10/6/64 $1.50
H. Kulhanek, Jr. 10/7/64 $1.40 $2.90
C. R. Keeler 10/6/64 $1.30
C. R. Keeler 10/7/64 $1.50 $2.80
J. R. Haskell 10/6/64 $1.50
J. R. Haskell 10/7/64 $1.55 $3.05
Paul Jueneman 10/6/64 $1.50
Paul Jueneman 10/7/64 $1.40 $2.90
"March 19, 1965
File: 10-E-46
Mr. G. E. Mallery
Vice President-Personnel
Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad
LaSalle Street Station
Chicago, Illinois
Dear Sir:
I am hereby appealing to you from Mr. O. R. Thurston's decision
to Mr. G. D. Kellogg account of Claim turned in for B&B Gang
turning in their noon day meals on October 6 and 7, 1964.
These men were directed by Mr. R. B. Stone, Master Carpenter,
to leave their outfit cars at Lincoln, Nebraska and go to South Bend,
Nebraska, some 30 miles away and work there on October 6 and 7,
1964. Then he turned down their noon-day meals on these days.
This is a direct violation of the Maintenance of Way Agreement.
I am now requesting you allow the expenses for J. J. Russell,
C. L. Truhdicka, H. D. Hoffman, H. Kulhanek, Jr., C. R. Keeler, J. R.
Haskell and Paul Jueneman, a total of $20.33. Each man's total
should be shown in Mr. Thurston's file.
Please obtain complete file from Mr. Thurston and allow Claim.
Yours truly,
/s/ Jay W. Cope
General Chairman"
11. On May 5, 1965, this claim was denied by Carrier's Vice PresidentLabor Relations on the basis of the previous declinations as being correct.
12. Subsequently, General Chairman was told in conference on August 4,
1965, that the instructions issued in 1961 were not in conflict with the
Agreement provisions and no rule in the Agreement between the
parties
had been cited that would support this claim.
13. The claim was not resolved in further conference or correspondence
between the parties.
OPINION OF BOARD:
This claim must be denied because there is no
rule in the agreement of the parties which supports it.
The Employes ask for a sustaining award on the basis of the provisions
of Rule 34 (c) of the Agreement. This could have been granted if a mutually agreed-upon interpretation had not been added to and made part and
parcel of the rule itself. The parties' relevant interpretation reads as follows:
"Section (c) is intended to cover employes who may in an emergency be called out to perform work on or off their regular assigned
territory and held away from their home or regular boarding or outfit
cars . . ." (Emphasis ours.)
15756 7
The employes do not contend in this claim that they were called out to
perform work in an emergency situation; instead, they rely upon the portion
of the above sentence which commences with the word, "and." This conjunctive word operates to make the phrase, "in an emergency," applicable to the
entire paragraph interpreting what Section (c) is intended to cover.
There is insufficient evidence of record to justify sustaining the claim
on a mutually accepted past practice theory.
We have examined our Awards 12832, 10923, 3698, and Second Division
Award 3658, which have been presented in support of the position of the
employes. These are distinguishable because of variance in the wording of
the applicable contractual provisions, i.e., Award 10923 is based on the
wording of Article 2, Section 8 (d), of the Agreement of the parties in that
case-which is quite different to the wording of said Section (c). None of
the awards cited is applicable to the above mutually agreed-upon interpretation
of Section (c).
Therefore, the claim is denied.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving
the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and 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;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement was not violated.
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of July 1967.
Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, 111. Printed in U.S.A.
15756 8