NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-20640
Irwin M. Lieberman, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claims of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
of Railroad Signalmen on the Missouri Pacific Rail
road Company:
Claim No. 1.
On behalf of Signalman W. H. Pankey for expenses incurred during October 1972, as follows: (tota
October 6 - $4.55 October 12 - $4.53 October 24 - $4.61
" 10 - 4.52 " 18 - 4.59 " 25 - 4.59
" 11 - 4.51 " 23 - 4.60 26 -4.61
" 30 - 4.59
(Carrier's File: G 225-1ri-53)
Claim No. 2.
On behalf of Signal Maintenance Foreman M. E. Giger for expenses
incurred during October and November 1972, as follows (total $23.95):
October 20 - $4.00 October 30 - $5.00
" 25 - 4.85 November 2 - 4.95
" 26 - 5.15
(Carrier's File: G ^-2:-18-54)
OPINION OF BOARD: The Claims herein involve Rule 600 (e). That Rule
provides:
"Monthly rated emplcyes will be paid actual necessary
expenses when away from headquarcers, except employes
will not be reimbursed for expense of their noon-day meal
::hen lc avin~ and recurv'r:g the same day unless required
to leave headquarters two (2) hours in advance of assigned
working
:.ou_s or held away from headquarters two (2) hours
after assigned working hours."
Award Number 20740 Page 2
Docket Number SG-20640
In both Claims Petitioner alleges that Claimants are entitled
to expenses for their noon meals on the days in question under Rule 600
(e) since they qualified under the time requirements of the Rule and were
away from their headquarters. The sole issue in contention is whether or
not the Claimants were away from their headquarters on the days in question.
Claimant Pankey's headquarters was described in Carrier's Bulletin No. 2 of January 22, 1973 as
headquarters was described in Carrier's Bulletin No. 21, of November 5,
1970 as "St. Louis, Missouri": his reporting point is 3001 Chouteau in St.
Louis. Claimant Pankey's territory covered a relative small area of St.
Louis trackage and Claimant Giger, who is a foreman covers a territory which
not only includes the city of St. Louis but an area extending beyond it and
also into Illinois. On the days in question Claimant Pankey was working
within his territory and Claimant Giger was working in the city of St. Louis,
also within his territory.
Petitioner argues that the headquarters or hDme station is not
synonymous with
territory. In essence, the Organization contends that the
headquarters is the reporting point "...whether it be a tool house, interlocking tower, office or th
Organization states
that it is
reasonable to interpret Rule 600 (e) that the word "headquarters" means the
point at which the employe begins and ends his tour of duty. It is also
argued that the whole city of St. Louis is not a headquarters since it is
too large and disbursed.
Carrier states that Claimant Pankey worked more than his normal
hours on each of the ten days involved in his Claim on the Carroll Street
interlocking plant: this was his headquarters point according to Petitioner.
Similarly, it is argued that Claimant Giger worked in St. Louis on each of
the days specified in his Claim. It is concluded that on a prima facie basis
there is no basis for the claims. The Carrier states that the headquarters
of signal
maintainers throughout
its system are designated as the town or
city in which the signal
maintainer starts
and stops work and has his tool
house. Following this procedure it is argued that Claimant Pankey's headquarters is St. Louis, but C
job from other Signal Maintainer jobs in St. Louis
It is apparent that Petitioner is troubled by the application of
the Rule to employes assigned to large cities such as St. Louis. In his
letter to Carrier dated April 3, 1973, the Organization's General Chairman
stated:
"It appears to me in this case that Mr. Pankey is being
penalized for living in St. Louis, Mo., which is approximately 13 miles across North and South and 7
East and West, had he been living in a small town such as
Falls City, Nebr. he would have been out of the City Limits
within a Mile any way he could have went."
Award Number 20740 Page 3
Docket Number SG-20640
It is noted that the rule in dispute is a travel expense rule. It is
clear from the unrefuted statement of Carrier that similar monthly rated
employes do not receive expenses, regardless of the number of hours worked,
unless they leave the city or town in which they are headquartered.
It must be made clear that the term "headquarters point" as
used in the Agreement for purpose of determining when pay starts for hourly
rated employes is not the same as "headquarters" as used in Rule 600 for
monthly rated employes. Also, we agree with Petitioner that headquarters
is quite distinct from territory and they must not be confused. We do not
believe that the best interests of the parties would be served by defining
headquarters so narrowly that when an employe steps outside of his toolhouse
he has left his headquarters; we shall accept the Carrier's position that
the town or city specified for the assignment is the headquarters for the
purposes of the Rule involved herein. Under this concept, both employes
herein were clearly at their headquarters on the days in question and hence
are not entitled to lunch expenses.
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 jurisdiction over
the dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement was not violated.
A W A R D
Claims denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
(~(i
~·
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of May 1975.
-d