BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND STEAMSHIP
CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND
STATION EMPLOYES
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-6675) that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: For a great number of years, the Kansas City Southern Railway Company, maintained passenger Trains Nos. 15 and 16, between Port Arthur, Texas and Shreveport, Louisiana, which made connections with Trains Nos. 9 and 10, at Shreveport, Louisiana, for Kansas City. Effective May 11, 1968, Trains Nos. 9, 10, 15 and 16 were discontinued which left no passenger service, whatsoever, between Port Arthur, Texas and Shreveport, Louisiana. Representatives of the Organization, who resided in the Port Arthur area, had used Trains No. 15 and 16, in connection with their trips to Kansas City, to consider and adjust grievances; however, effective with the discontinuance of the last passenger trains between Port Arthur and Shreveport, there was no other means of transportation available, except use of a personal automobile, as Bus and Airplane schedules were very round-about. John W. Bethel is a "Duly Accredited Representative of The Employes" and sought transportation, as such, for the purpose above stated.
Claim was seasonably filed with the Carrier on September 23, 1968; declined on October 28, 1968; appealed to Mr. Farrar, the highest Officer designated by the Carrier to handle such matters, on November 25, 1968 (Employes' Exhibit A); declined by Mr. Farrar, January 20, 1969 (Employes'
Exhibit B); and handled in conference at Kansas City, Missouri, on May 29, 1969, with no agreement reached. (Employes' Exhibit C).
CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: On August 8 and 9, 1968 Carrier scheduled conference with General Chairman Grayson of the Clerks' Organization at Kansas City, Missouri for the purpose of discussing claims and grievances. Mr. Grayson resides at Shreveport, Louisiana which is located about 550 miles south of Kansas City.
Claimant Bethel, employed as revising clerk in Carrier's Local Freight Office at Beaumont, Texas, accompanied the General Chairman to the conference at Kansas City. At the time of the conference the Vice General Chairman, who resides at Kansas City, was absent and claimant was designated as Acting Vice General Chairman.
Claimant was granted an annual pass (transportation) and time off from his clerical position at P.eaumont (leave of absence) to attend the conference.
Mr. Bethel filed claim on his own behalf September 23, 1968 (copy attached as Carrier's Exhibit No. 1) reading in part:
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, in relying on Rule 52 of the Agreement, contends that Carrier violated same when it failed to furnish Claimant transportation from Port Arthur, Texas to Shreveport, Louisiana and return concerning Claimant's trip to Kansas City, Missouri for conference with Carrier's highest Officer ove^ claims, thus requiring Claimant to use his personal automobile for said trip between Port Arthur, Texas and Shreveport, Louisiana.
Carrier's position in this matter is that Claimant did not request nor was he authorized by Carrier to drive his personal automobile in this instance; that automobile mileage is allowed an employe in performance of company business only when authorized by a proper Carrier officer; that Rule 52 means that Carrier will provide passes for transportation on Carrier's passenger trains; that in regard to past practice, the Organization contended that Carrier has furnished such transportation by furnishing a "pass"; that concerning said past practice, after passenger service was discontinued at various locations on Carrier's system starting in 1935, Carrier never furnished an employe bus or automobile passage or made an allowance therefor; that in the past the parties have not heretofor construed "transportation" as applying to other than passenger trains; that in the absence of a rule or practice requiring Carrier to subsidize Claimant under the circumstances, this claim should be denied.
The determination of this dispute depends on the interpretation of the word "transportation" as used in said Rule 52. This dispute arose as a result of Carrier's discontinuance of passenger train service between Port Arthur, Texas and Shreveport, Louisiana in May of 1968. Does Rule 52 thus require Carrier to supply an employe, such as Claimant herein, transportation or the cost thereof, in the absence of transportation over Carrier's railroad on its passenger trains? The Orgaiization says that it does and Carrier claims it doesn't.
We do not agree with Claimant's contention that Rule 52 requires Carrier in this instance to furnish him transportation or in lieu thereof expenses for travel. Rule 52, as applied in the past, in regard to the interpretation of the word "transportation" in said rule has been limited by the parties to mean over Carrier's passenger trains. This is readily seen by the statement of the Organization's acting Vice-G°neral Chairman, John W. Beth~·1, in his letter of September 23, 1968 to Carrier's Superintendent of Terminals, L. R. Gardner, when he stated: "For years this Carrier has furnished such transportation, by furnishing a pass, authorising transportation on its passenger trains, between any conference and/or headquarters points . . . . .
Award No. 12351 of this Board is analogous to the dispute herein. In interpreting Rule 26 of the Agreement the words "Free transportation consistent with regulations will be furnished", the Board went on to state: