(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The (terrier violated the Agreement when it failed and refused to compensate Machine Operator E. W. Murphy for work performed in going to and from his work lotion and assembly point prior to, following and continuous with his regular assigned work period.

 (2) Machine Operator E. W. Murphy be allowed pay at his time and one-half rate for all time expended outside of his regular assigned work period beginning May 8, 1978 and for each day thereafter that the violation referred to in Part (1) hereof continues to exist (System File C T112/D-2251)."

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, a machine operator on Maintenance Gang 5519r
 seeks compensation, at the overtime rate, for the time he spent traveling from the nearest suitable available lodging facility to his assigned work site when living away from horns. While the claim is open ended, in the grievance letter dated July 5, 1978, the Organization requested the Carrier to compensate claimant for.such traveling time for various days in May and June, 1978. Claimant was instructed to report to his machine at the work site at his assigned starting time and was not permitted to leave the work site until his assigned quitting time.
The Organization contends claimant's designated assembly point is the lodging facility according to Rule 26(c) (5). Under Rule 21, claimant's work time is to begin and to conclude at h=.a designated assembly point. In this case traveled to sad from the cork site outside his assig.^.e3 hours, he is entitled to premium pay (time and one half) pursu2at to Rule ^c4(a). In response to the Carrier's past practice argument, the Organization maintains that past practice is i contract language. W e Carrier asserts that under a reasonable interpretation of Rule 26(c) (5) and Rule 21, the claimant's machine location =s his designated assembly point for determining hi (terrier claims a past practice has been established on this property which makes claimant's designated assembly point the location of his machine. Lastly, the Carrier argues by analogy that pay for time to and from the lodging facilities would be like paying claimant for time between home and work and, thus, the time is not compensable.


Rule 26(c) is titled "TRAVEL FROM ONE WORK POINT TO ANOTfiER" and subsection (5) states:






The relevant portion of Rule 21 titled "BEGINNING 9iT.D SID OF DAY" follows:

The issues presented by this dispute are: 1) what is claimant's designated assembly point for the purpose of determining time actually worked; and 2.) if claimant's designated assembly point is the nearest suitable accomodation, what is the approp
The employes have cited several Third Division awards concerning pay for time spent traveling between designated assembly point:. and work sites but is each case either the designated assembly point was undisputed or the Carrier had failed to specify a designated assembly point. See Third Division Awards No. 6668 (Robertson); 8825 (Bak_'.ce); 9983 (Weston); and 2191( (Lieberman). These cases provide little guidance for ascertaining claimant's designated assembly point for compensation purroses and none of thin ruled that a machine operator's lodging fa
Rule 26(c) (5) clearly defines claimant's designated assembly point for the purpose of mileage expense reimbursement. We rule, however, that Rule 26(c) (5) was not intended to set claimant's assembly point for the purpose of determining the actual time he works. In light of the express exception in Rule 21, it would be unreasonable to interpret Rule 26(c) (5) to arbitrarily fix claimant's designated assembly point at the location he chose for lodging. Also, paying claimant for his travel time would be like paying claimant for time spent journeying between home and work which is clearly not contemplated under the agreement. Third Division Award t?o.

 22466 (r^randen). Since Rule 26(c) (5) is inapplicable, claimant's designated


assembly point was the location of his machine on the dates involved in this controversy. Our ruling should not be extended to stand for the principle that the designated assembly point for machine operators will always be the location of his machine. Under some circumstances, the designated assembly point for machine operators could be a point other than the work site. Our ruling that claimant's designated assembly point is the,location of his machine is limited to these particular facts.

        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, 193;

 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


        Claim denied.


                          NATIOPIAL RAILROAD A^JUSME:7T BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th dry of June 1981.