(a) Mr. J. W. Powers and Mr. M. M. Thomas be paid the actual necessary lodging expenses of $6.18 per night, July 29, and 30, 1968, or a total of $12.36 each.
(b) Mr. J. O. Rowes be paid for use of his automobile in obtaining lodging for 236 miles at 10 cents or $23.60, as result of camp car not available. In addition thereto, be paid travel time outside his regular assigned hours on the basis of two (2) minutes per mile traveled, at his pro rata rate.
(c) Mr. G. C. Williams be paid for use of his automobile in obtaining lodging for 316 miles at 10 cents or $31.60, as result of camp car not available. In addition thereto, be paid travel time outside of his regular assigned hours on the basis of two (2) minutes per mile traveled, at his pro rata rate.
(d) Mr. H. A. Blume be paid for use of his automobile in obtaining lodging for 268 miles at 10 amts or $26.80, as result of camp car not available. In addition thereto, be paid travel time outside his regular assigned hours on the basis of two (2) minutes per mile traveled, at his pro rata rate.
(e) Mr. H. C. Creel, Jr. be paid for use of his automobile in obtaining lodging for 96 miles at 10 cents or $9.60, as result of camp car not available. In addition thereto, be paid travel time outside his regular assigned hours on the basis of two (2) minutes per mile traveled, at his pro rata rate.
(f) Mr. J. T. Mitchum be paid for use of his automobile in obtaining lodging for 240 miles at 10 cents or $24.00, as result of camp car not available. In addition thereto, be paid travel time outside his regular assigned hours on the basis of two (2) minutes per mile traveled, at his pro rata rate. [Carrier's File: 15-56.]
There is no question in my mind and I feel that in all honesty and sincerity, there is no question in the mind of any of the persons present at the conference, but that the Memorandum is not being applied as was clearly understood."
Inasmuch as the provisions of the Memorandum Agreement of June 17, 1968 are clear and unambiguous, Carrier will not burden the record by reproducing the various proposals made in negotiations prior to that agreement being executed, as referred to in the letter of July 7, 1969 to Vice President Gegg.
OPINION OF BOARD: The dispute herein involves Memorandum of Agreement dated June 17, 1968, which reads in part:
The Claimants herein were assigned to Signal Gang No. 1. The camp car outfit, to which they were assigned, was moved over the weekend of July 25-28, 1968, from Darlington, S. C., to Yemassee, S. C. All the camp cars were at Yemassee on Monday morning, July 29, except the sleeping car, which it had been necessary to cut out at Florence, S. C., for repairs. On July 29 the foreman of the gang was advised by the Assistant Supervisor of Signal Construction that due to the sleeping car being bad-ordered for repairs, it would be Wednesday, July 31, before it would arrive at Yemassee. The Assistant Supervisor also explained to the Foreman of the gang the provisions of the Memorandum of Agreement of June 17, 1968, under which the employes would make arrangements for their lodging for Monday night and Tuesday night, with reimbursement for the expense thereof not to exceed $4.00 per day.
The General Chairman of the Organization, on September 16, 1968, filed claim in behalf of Claimants Foreman J. W. Powers and Signal Helper M. M. Thomas for payment of lodging expenses of $6.18 per night for July 29 and 30, and in behalf of other named employes in the gang for two round trips automobile mileage between Yemassee and their homes to obtain lodging at 10 cents per mile, and travel time for time spent by the employes in making such trips on the basis of two minutes per mile traveled.
The Carrier has contended throughout the handling of the dispute that the provisions of Section I-A-3 of the Memorandum Agreement of June 17, 1968, are controlling. The Petitioner contends that the provisions of Rule 25Expenses-are applicable. Rule 25 reads:
From our review of the record, we find that Claimants were employes covered by Section I of the Memorandum Agreement of June 17, 1968, and when lodging was not available, they were entitled to the benefits specifically provided for in Section I-A-3. It is well settled that a specific rule takes precedence over a general rule, and also that an agreement that is plain and unambiguous must be applied according to its terms. The Claimants have been granted the allowance specifically provided for in Section I-A-3 of the Agreement of June 17, 1968, and no further allowance is due.
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;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and
DISSENT TO AWARDS NOS. 18496 AND 18497
DOCKETS NOS. SG-18555 AND SG-18723
Award No. 14896, and No. 18497 whch follows it, is palpable error and should be disregarded in future disputes between the parties involved.
The Memorandum of Agreement of June 17, 1968 controls in the payment of expense allowances and travel time to all of the Carrier's Signal Department Employes who are employed in a type of service the nature of which regularly requires them throughout their work week to live away from home in camp cars, camps, highway trailers, hotels or motels. That it applies only to these employes is established by the first sentence of Section II of the Agreement which rejects Section II of the Award of Arbitration Board 298 [Section II of the Award covered "Employes (other than those referred to in Section I * * *) who are required * * * to be away from their headquarters point * * *:'] Hence, it is inescapable that the present Agreement covers those, and only those employes described in its Section I, and when the parties said in Section
lI that Rules 18, 19 and 25 of the working Agreement shall continue in effect for employes sent away from home station, they were referring to those employes embraced in Section I.
It being shown that the Memorandum provides benefits only for those employes set out in its Section I, and that all of the rules of the working Agreement were preserved to other employes by the first sentence of Section II, the holding of the Majority is that the parties performed a useless act in writing the second sentence of Section II because there is no one left to whom it could apply. We have consistently held that to so interpret an agreement is improper.
CARRIER MEMBERS' ANSWER TO DISSENTS TO AWARDS
NOS. 18496 AND 18497, DOCKET NOS. SG-18555
AND SG-18723
The dissents consist in the main of a rehash of the arguments previously advanced by the Organization and the dissenter, all of which were fully considered and found lacking by the majority. Repetition does not add validity to the arguments.
Awards 18496 and 18497 and the records on which they are based stand as the best refutation of the views of the dissenter. The awards are not erroneous, and the dissents do not make them so, nor do the dissents detract from the awards.