NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-19122
Robert A. Franden, Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
i
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed and refused
to reimburse Steel Bridge Mechanic B. E. Lawson for actual necessary expenses
incurred during the final pay period of August, 1969, during which time he was
required to leave his assignment on Gang 901 (System File A-9129/D-5026).
(2) The Carrier now be required to allow Steel Bridge Mechanic B. E.
Lawson the sum of $11.95 to make him whole for the monetary loss suffered because
of the violation referred to within Part (1) of this claim.
(3) The Carrier shall also pay the claimant ten percent (107.) interest
per annum on the monetary allowance accruing from the initial claim date until
paid.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant is assigned to steel bridge gang No. 901 which
is headquartered in outfit cars. On the claim dates
Claimant was sent to Tulsa, Oklahoma to perform work at that point. Claimant
submitted an expense statement covering his actual expenses. Carrier refused
to reimburse Claimant for his actual expenses, but limited him to a $7.00 per
Claimant alleges a violation of Rule 31, Article 5 of the Agreement
between the parties which reads in part as follows:
"Rule 31. Employes in temporary or emergency service, except
as provided in Rule 24, required by the direction of the Management to leave their home station, wil
traveling or waiting during the regular working hours. All hours
worked will be paid for in accordance with practice at home station.
Travel or waiting time during the recognized overtime hours at home
station will be paid for at the pro rata rate.
If during the time on the road a man is relieved from duty and is
permitted to go to bed for five or more hours, such relief time will
not be paid for, provided that in no case shall he be paid for a total
Award Number 19278 Page 2
"of less than eight hours each calendar day, when such irregular
service prevents the employe.from making his regular daily hours
at home station. Where meals and lodging are not provided by the
railway, actual necessary expenses will be allowed."
Carrier takes the position that Claimant is entitled to recover only
that amount set out in the meals and lodging expense provisions of the Arbitration Board 298 Award.
under Rule 31. The parties put the question to Arbitration Board 298. Following is the question pres
Q. "Are the employes entitled to preserve the provisions
of Article 5, Rule 31, of the Agreement effective
April 1, 1951?"
A. "The paragraphs of Article 5, Rule 31 deal with different
subjects. The first and second paragraphs apply to employees
subject to Section II of the Award. The employees elected
to preserve these two paragraphs; therefore, these two
paragraphs should continue to apply to employees subject to
those rules in the same manner as they were applied prior to
the Award. The third paragraph of Rule 31, which the
employes also elected to preserve, applies to employees covered by Section I of the Award. In integr
paragraph of Rule 31 with Section 1-C-1 of the Award and
with Article 5, Rule 24 of the agreement between the parties,
there should be no duplication of benefits."
It is the position of the Carrier that the above answer had the effect
of limiting the reservation of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Rule 31 to those employes
covered by Section II of the Award of Arbitration Board 298.
Had the Arbitration Board simply answered the question in the affirmative or negative the case c
unclear whether the reservation of Rule 31 is applicable to the Claimants. We
are asked to resolve a dispute as to the meaning of the interpretation rendered
by Arbitration Board 298 when it answered the question as set out above. Our
right to do so has been raised by the Carrier in the form of a plea to this
Board's jurisdiction.
Award 18577 (Ritter) correctly states the controlling jurisdictional
doctrine:
Award Number 19278 Page 3
Docket Number MW-19122
"In carefully considering the jurisdictional question involved
in this dispute, this Board finds that Awards 17845 (Dolnick) and
18485 (Rosenbloom) are controlling. By and under authority of
these Awards, Arbitration Board No. 298 has exclusive jurisdiction
to rule on any difference arising as to the meaning of its (Arbitration Board No. 298) Award. Had th
been raised, the result would probably have been different. However, this Board is limited in its po
disputes within its jurisdiction conferred under the Railway Labor
Act. Also, under the same Act, Arbitration Board 298 is clothed
with the final power to determine the controversy. See Brotherhood
of Railroad Trainmen vs. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific
Railroad Company, 248 Fed. Supp. 1008 and Section 157 of Title 45,
U.S.C.A., Par. 3rd. Subsection (c)."
For the foregoing reasons, this dispute will be dismissed without prejudice.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
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 no jurisdiction to
decide the dispute which is the subject matter of this claim.
A W A R D
Claim dismissed without prejudice.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
B·, Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
Cr~.a
s~rfh.~
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of June 1972.