Award No. 19097 Docket No. TE-19146
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND STEAMSHIP
CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND
STATION EMPLOYES
(Formerly Transportation-Communication Division, BRAG)
portation-Communication Division. BRAC, on the Norfolk & Western Railway Company (former Virginian), T-C 5787, that:
Relief Agent on the Norfolk Division for the cost of meals which he incurred while working away from his headquarters point on December 20, 27 and 30, 1968. The Employes contend that the effective Agreement requires Carrier to pay such cost.
up to and with the highest officeT designated by Carrier to handle such claims. it was discussed in conference on November 17, 1969 and February 19, 1970, after which Carrier reaffirmed its previous declinations.
he incurred while performing seivice away from his headquarters on the olaim date,'.
is attached hereto as Carrier's Attachment "B." The preamble paragraph of that agreement shows that the agreement was made "* * * for the purpose of implementing award of Arbitration Board No. 298, dated September 30, 1967." The last, paragraph appearing u;:der Section 2 of this supplemental agreement was made to read as follows:
E. G. Saunders, the Claimant in this case, held the position of Relief Agent on the Norfolk Division.
Brookneal, Virginia is a point located 44 miles away from Victoria, Virginia, the latter being the hea·dquarte'rs point of Claimant Saunders' Relief Agent assignm(ut. Mr. Saunders was used to provide relief on the position of Agent al Lrookneal commencing on Monday, December 16, 1968, and continuing through Friday, December 27, 1968. Under the provisions of Section 2 of the Supplemc-ntal Agreement dated October 25, 1968, Mr. Saunders was ccmpensal.ed for automobile mileage allowance and travel time for traveling from Victoria to Brookneal on Decembor 16, 1968. Ile was also compensated for 1.:';.00 per day meal and lodging allowance for each date, December 16, 17, 1.8 and 1:1, 1968. He was instructed to and did return to his headquarters point at Victoria, Virginia on Friday, December 20, 1968. He was compensated for automobile mileage allowance and travel time for travelhig from Brookneal to Victoria on Friday, December 20, 1968, and for returning to Brookneal on Monday, December 23, 1968. He was then compensated for $7.00 per day meal and lodging allowance for each date, December 23, 24, 25 and 26, 1968. H~ was released from this relief work and returned to his headquarters point at Victoria on Friday, Decennber 27, 1968. He was compensated for automobile mileage allowance and travel time for traveling from Brookneal to Victoria on Friday, December 27, 1968.
On Monday, Dec.·mber 30, 1968, Mr. Saunders was used to perform only one day of relief work on the position of Agent-Operator at Ja=ratt, Virginia. a point located about 46 miles away from Victoria. He was compensated for automobile mileage allowance and travel time for traveling from Victoria to Jarratt and return on such date.
OPINION OF BOARD: At the time this dispute arose the claimant occupied a position of Relief Agent, established under the provisions of Article
25 of the parties' agreement. As such, he work--d at various locations on his seniority district relieving regular assigned agents and performing other work as assigned, in accordance with the rule. His headquarters station was Victoria, Virginia.
During the second half of December, 1968, claimant worked the two work weeks from December 16 to 29, inclusive, relieving the agent at Brookneal; and on the 30th he worked one day at Jarratt. Brookneal is 44 miles from the headquarters station, and Jarratt is 46 miles away. Thus, on both assignments claimant was working away- from his headquarters point.
The Brookneal assignment included live rest-day weekends, December 21 and 22; and December 28 and 29. Claimant did not work on these four days. However, on December 20, and again on December 27, after completing the fifth work-day of each week, he returned to his headquarters.
The agreements between the parties provided that such employes will be allowed eartain expense and travel allowances when required to work away from their beadquarters point. These provision, will be further explored below.
Claimant was allowed travel expense for all of the trips made as provided. He was also allowed the maximum meal and lodging expense for the first four days of each week he was assigned at Brookneal. He claimed that on December 20, 27 and 30, days on whielr he actually performed service away from his headquarters point, he should have been paid the actual meal expense incurred on those days, a total of $10.75 for the three days. Carrier declined, contending that since he returned to his headquarters on each of those days and was paid the travel expense provided therefor, he was not entitled to meal and/or lodging expenses.
"Not less than one position as Relief Agent will be established on each division. The monthly salary of each position will be $250.00. Two dollars ($2.00) per day will be allowed for expenses for each day away from headquarters and allowance of 4r/2r cents per mile will be made when instructed to use own automobile in carrying on the duties of said position. The use of Relief Agents for other than Relief work may be permitted only when and if no Relief work is available. Headquarters for each Relief Agent will be assigned."
The salary and expense provisions have been amended from time to time to reflect wage increases and increases in expense. In the present case we are not concerned with either the salary or travel allowance, but only with the specified "away from headquarters expense," which was $3.50 per day prior to the inception of the dispute.
The record appears to support a conclusion that this expsene allowance was made for each day that a Relief Agent worked away from his headquarters, including the last day of a week or assignment when he returned to his headquarters after completing work.
The Carrier and petitioning employes were parties to a proceeding under the Railway Labor Act which resulted in an award rendered by Arbitration Board No. 298, providing travel and lodging expense allowances for employes required to work away from their headquarters point.
This award gave the employe representatives an option of retaining the existing agreement provisions relating to the subject matter, or of accepting any or all of the benefits provided by the award in lieu of the existing benefits. The Employes here chose to accept the allowances of the award in lieu of those provided by Article 25 for Relief Agents. The agreement implementing the award of Arbitration Board No. 29E contains the following:
The gravamen of the claim before us lies in the contention of the Employes that this revision of Article 25 applies only to the amount of the allowances and not to the conditions surrounding their payment. And, since the daily expense was allowed, prior to the amendment, on days such as those here involved, it should continue to be allowed after the amendment, but at the increased rate.
Th·~ Arbitration Bc:ai·d has interpreted its award to mean that on any day an employe is authorized to return to his headquarters point he is entitled either to be reimbursed for cost of meals and lodging or to the travel time and transportation allowance, but not both, Interprnta~t om No. 91, Arbitration Board No. 298.
While that interpretation related to extra employes, it is clear that the parties here have placed Relief Agents in th:~ same category as extra employee so far as the benefits of the award are concerned.
Carrier relies on 'the int,>rpretation as support for its denial of the meal expense claimed.
Thus it is clear that the narrow issue in dispute is the extent to which Article 25 was amended. If only the allowances ware increased to those provided by the Award, the claim is good. But if both the allowances and the conditions surrounding them were replaced by the Award the claim will fail.
The issue is ind·.·ed narrow, and the position of the Employes is not frivolous. However, after careful and thoughtful consideration we must decide against them, for two reasons: First, if it had been the intent to retain all existing coauioions and merely increase the amounts provided by Article 25, it would have been easy to indicate such intent by appropriate language or to have made the amendment of Article 25 a separate undertaking, as had been done in the past when such increases were negotiated. Second, it is axiomatic that one who accepts favorable provisions of an agreement must also be deemed to have accepted all of its provisions, including those unfavorable to him. For these reasons the claim must be denied.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That tire 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, 7934;