THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY
(Lake Region)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Claimant Wills is the regularly assigned operator of Diesel Crane No. X-0031, with an assigned work week extending from Monday through Friday (Saturdays and Sundays are rest days). Although the claimant's point of residence is at Conneaut, Ohio, his designated headquarters are mobile outfit cars, which are also the starting point for each day's work.
During the week of February 7 through February 11, 1966, the claimant was operating Diesel Crane No. X-0031 in the Buffalo (N. Y.) area. On Friday, February 11, 1966, the claimant completed the work assigned to him in the Buffalo area and, in compliance with orders given by the Carrier, he billed his crane and outfit cars to Bellevue, Ohio, where the claimant was to begin working on Monday, February 14, 1966. The claimant accompanied the crane and outfit cars until arrival of the train at Conneaut. Since this was the place of the claimant's residence, he arranged to stop over at Conneaut for the purpose of a short visit with his family during the weekend because there was no work to perform at Bellevue until Monday morning, February 14, 1966. On Sunday evening, February 13, 1966, the claimant boarded a freight train at Conneaut and rode to Bellevue, arriving well in advance of his starting time on Monday, February 14, 1966. Six hours were consumed in traveling front Conneaut to Bellevue. The claimant was allowed pay for the time consumed in traveling from Buffalo, New York to Conneaut, Ohio on February 11, 1966, but he was not allowed pay for the time consumed in traveling from Conneaut, Ohio, to Bellevue, Ohio on February 13, 1966.
a violation of the agreement account the claimant was not allowed six (6) hours' travel time for February 13, 1966. Copy of this claim is attached as Carrier's Exhibit A.
Copies of the correspondence reflecting the subsequent handling of the claim on the property are attached hereto as Carrier's exhibits, and are identifiable as follows:
OPINION OF BOARD: A perusal of the entire record indicates that the facts were as follows: On Friday, 11 February, 1966, the Claimant, who was assigned to a camp car, was instructed to bill his crane from Buffalo to Bellevue and to report there on Monday, 14 February, 1966. During his regular hours, Claimant traveled from Buffalo on said train to Conneaut, where he detrained to visit his family. Saturday and Sunday were his rest days. On Sunday, 13 February, 1966, Claimant boarded another train and reported for work on the following Monday.
This claim is not for transportation expenses, but is far straight time under Rule 46 as a result of the six hours spent on 13 February, 1966, by Claimant traveling from Conneaut to Bellevue.
"Except as otherwise provided in these rules, employes required by the Management to travel on or off their assigned territory will be allowed pro-rata for all time traveling or waiting during or outside of their assigned working hours, and on rest days, and the holidays specified in Rule 31, except:
In Award 15871, where this referee acted as the neutral, it was stated that in interpreting an agreement, the controlling question is not what is fair and equitable, but, rather, what is the reasonable meaning contemplated by the parties. Obviously, the rule in the instant case does not contemplate compensation for employes exercising their seniority, traveling between their homes and designated assembling points or traveling for personal reasons, but it does contemplate the payment of compensation for employes who were required at the direction of the Carrier to travel from a point of origin to a point of designation.
Rule 59 of the Agreement allows employes assigned to camp cars . to make week-end trips to their homes." However, they are not, under Rule 46(d), as hereinbefore noted, entitled to compensation therefor.
Then the real question is whether the Claimant's stopping at home is incidental, as the organization contends, or whether it caused such a break in continuity that the prohibitation of paragraph (d) of Rule 46 is applicable.
In Award 12517 (Kane), we held that under a similar rule where Claimants had visited their homes on their rest days while enroute, was "incidental." However, Award 12517 is distinguishable because the rule in that case contained the wording ". . traveling in or to . " and, further, we are unable to discern any restriction regarding the rule there involved which was similar to paragraph (d).
While Award 5977 (Messmore) interpreted a similar rule with a qualifying exception almost identical to paragraph (d), the facts are very dissimilar. There the claim was denied because the Organization was contending that outfit cars constituted the home station of the Claimants during their regular assigned work week, but that the homes of the respective claimants on their rest days were their home stations.
. It appears to us that there being no precedential authority to which we are bound that we must render an independent decision, giving, as we do, the entirety of Rule 46 its most reasonable meaning. Here, the claim is, as herebefore noted, for the time spent by Claimant traveling from his home to the outfit car in Bellevue. The result of Claimant's detraining at Conneaut places him squarely within the exception to Rule 46 and the prohibition of paragraph (d), i.e., " . traveling . . . between their homes and designated assembling points." Therefore, Claimant is not entitled to be paid under Rule 46, and the claim must be denied.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds: