(American Train Dispatchers Association PARTIES TO DISPUTE

STATE='.T CF CL=?: ClaiR Of the a=Rerican Train Dispatchers Associl aticn,
 on behalf of Claimant Train Dispatcher J. F. Sheuerman, fcr apprCCri?te co-mensation on October :,I-NCve^ber 1, 1974 ~qhen required to leave his assigned headquarters at Vancouver, '7ashington and travel to Chemllt, C:e.CCn 11250 .·'1leS distant) and return, to attend a for^21 investiza-=Cn as -Follows:















OPINION OF BOP.PD: Claimant was held from his regular train dispatchers
 assignment on October 31, 1974 and November 1, 1974
 respectively to attend a formal investigation at Chemult, Oregon. His
 assigned hours are from 4:00 p. m. to 12:00 Midnight. He left his
 headquarter's station at Vancouver, hAshington at 6:00 p.m. on October 31,
 1974 and traveled by automobile to Bend, Oregon a distance of approximately
 130 miles where he sojourned over night.

 He left Bend, Oregon at 8:00 a.m. or. November 1, 1974 and traveled to Ch=_muu_'.t. Oregon to attend the formal investigation _=^.m 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p. m. The Claimant then returned to his Vancouver post arriving there at 800 p.m. On that same date.

 Claims (y)1 and (B)1 have already been resolved and the question now before the Board is whether Claimant is entitled to 8 hours at the time and one half rate account of his being called for service outside the assigned hours, pursuant to Articles 2(d) and 22. This reflects the two (2) hours spent in traveling from Bend to Chemult, the three (3) hours attending the investigation and the three (3j hours return travel from Chemult to Vancouver.
        Article 2(d) states:


            "that a regularly assigned train dispatcher called to perform service and reporting, outside the hours of his regular assignment shall be ppid actual time for such service with a minimum of two (2) hours, at a rate of time and one half of the position for which he is called."


        Article 20, specifies in pertinent part that:


            "a train dispatcher held from service to attend court or inquest or other business on behalf of the Company, shall be paid, if an assigned dispatcher -- the daily rate of his assignment for each day so held.


        Article 22, states, that:


            "a train dispatcher required by the Company to travel from one point to another to perform dispatching service will be paid actual time traveling at trick dispatcher's rate with a maximum: of eight (8) hours for each t;,entyfour (24) hours or less enroute."

                  Award Number 22181 :age 3

                  Docket Number TD-21762


ire pivotal issue before this Board is which of the asserted Articles is dispositive of the dispute?

 We are certainly aware of the many contract construction rules eloquently analyzed in the record and will avoid a cosparative assessment of their distinctions and directed applications. I_-.stead, we will examine the specific fact situations herein :within the interpretative framework of these articles and railroad precedent law.

        10ecif~-all-, 'ir

D I we mus~ d4s~__guish between being called to
 service on rest days to attend a court he2ring or an i^vestigation arid
 being called for such type service on assigned work days, . The ClaLmant
 was not called -n his off ti^°° t0 a tend t~-s inves-ig::-*-cn on
 October 31, 1974 and 1,:Gvember 1, 1974. He .iaz instead, he--d -_..._ ae:'Vlce
 on his regularly assigned work days and did not per=Can actual ur;-.
 dispatching functions duP7.no this time He was, however, i~ the daily
 rate of his assig:.'^ent for these two (2) days, 'five (j) hours of :.._=Ch
 were spent in claimed travel and three (3) hv1rs attending t:^e
 investigation. _e was also CO:IPJensa-ed for incurred travel exoenses.

 Article 2(d) addresses the performance of service outside the hours of the train dispatcher's regular assignment. Reporting to his work station. to perform identical or related tasks both before or after his regularly assigned tour of duty or on his rest day would suffice as ei=..=,ples. So would attending Court, inquest or, an investigative hearing on his rest day. Bat in this instant case, Claimant was not called on a rest day to attend this hearing, nor was he called to perform his regular train dispatcher services outside of his normally assigned hourrs. He was taken out of service on his regularly assigned work days, October 31 and November 1, 1974 to attend an investigation, consistent with the specifications and requirements of Article 20, Paragraph one (1).

 His travel and attendance on those days were, in effect, equivalent assignments. This being our conclusion on this point, we must reject the Claimant's assertion of Article 2(d)'s applicability.

 Correlatively, we will now review the relevancy of ~rticie 22 to Claimant's request for travel time compensation.

 This Article requires the Company to pay a train. dispatcher required to travel from one point to another to perform dispatching services actual time traveling at the trick dispatcher's rate, with a Tnxioum allowance of eight (8) hours for each twenty four (24) hours or less en route. It appears to be a -!ear and unambiguous provision which if construed strictly on its plain language would be inapplicable to this claim. The Claimant did not perform, that is, traditionally defined, train dispatcher services at Chemult, Oregon. He attended an investigation.
                  Award Number 22181 Page 4

                  Docket Number TD-21762


The Agreement, moreover, does not define the distinction between "services" expressed in a general sense or "train dispatcher services" expressed in a more specific sense.
Analysis of Article 2(d) for instance indicates that service could mean attending an investigative hearing on a rest day or performing the functions inherent in dispatching trains on rest days or before or after the train dispatcher's regular assignment. It cannot mean attending a court, inquest or investigative hearing either before or after the train dispatchers normal assignment since the second (2nd) paragraph of Article 20 covers this kind of assignment.

 This hoard has held that attendance at legal proceedings, particularly on rest days is service or work within the :weaning of the Agreement. See :,ward 16778. But it has not construed such attendance to mean. literally dispatching trains. It was directed toward the Company's allocation of the train dispatchers off time in a non train dispatching capacity. "::e language of Article 22 uses the specific term, "train dispatcher's service"not the generalized word, "service." It focus is more precise. Similarly, unlike Article 2(d)'s adjudicatory history there is no discernible pattern of Third Divisioned case law on Article 22 's intended construction or actual application. The Claimant has the burden of adducing proofs to substantiate his claimed assertions. He has not demonstrated that traveling to attend an investigation is synonomous with performing in fact actual train dispatching services within the definitional context of Article 22. For this reason we cannot sustain the claim.

          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.

                    Award Number 22181 Page 5

                    Docket Number TD-21762

                    A W A R D


        Clain denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADTiST:·ENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:°~ _p-I~
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of August 1978.

 a