Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 THIRD DIVISION
 Award No. 30693
 Docket No. CL-31131
 95-3-93-3-69

 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee James E. Mason when award was rendered.

 (Transportation Communications International ( Union PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (CSX Transportation, Inc. (former Chesapeake ( and Ohio Railway Company)

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:




























Form 1 Award No. 30693
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-31131
 95-3-93-3-69

 FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.


Most of the pertinent positions and arguments which are presented in this dispute have already been heard and ruled upon by our Board in Third Division Award 24492. Those positions which were not directly addressed by Award 24492 will be individually addressed herein.


The same location, the same negotiated agreement and the same basic work function which were disposed of in Award 24492 are again present here. In this case, however, Carrier advances the novel argument that the crew transporting service which was provided by the motel in question was a "courtesy service" provided by the motel to its patrons and was not a Carrier-contracted use of an "independent taxi company." They argued that Carrier did not request the service and therefore they were somehow exonerated from any possible violation of the negotiated agreement provision which requires that, at this location, transporting of crews is work which accrues to clerical employees. The Carrier in their initial denial of the claims expressed the opinion that the motel facility "is not a taxi service" but "merely provides free transportation to our crews lodged at that facility." This position was repeated and endorsed by the highest appeals officer in his eventual rejection of the claims.


After reviewing the respective arguments and contentions of the parties on this issue, the Board is of the opinion that the references to "independent taxi company" and "courtesy service provided freely by a motel to its patrons" is a distinction without a difference. Clearly the Carrier entered into an arrangement with the motel for use of its facilities by Carrier's train and engine crews. Carrier knew, or should have known, that this courtesy transportation service was part of the total service being provided by the motel. Carrier knew, or should have known, that this courtesy service required the transporting of train and engine crews to the motel from the carrier's property as well as from the motel to the reporting locations on the Carrier's property.

Form 1 Award No. 30693
 Page 3 Docket No. CL-31131
 95-3-93-3-69

Clearly, some specific act by a Carrier agent - either a crew member or some other Carrier representative - was required to initiate the act of having the motel courtesy vehicle come to Carrier's property to pick up a crew for delivery to the contract motel. The same type action by a Carrier agent was required to effect the delivery of the crew from the motel to the job site. Carrier did, therefore, in fact, make a contract with an independent party to provide sleeping accommodations for the train and engine crews which included the attendant courtesy transportation to and/or from the rest house facility.


The case file contains a reference to and reproduction of an
 in-house document dated February 7, 1991, over the signature of
 "C.W. WORKMAN" which addressed the subject of "TRANSPORTING OF T&E
 CREWS AT FLINT, MI." In that letter of instruction, a copy of
 which was given to the Organization's Local Chairman, the author
 clearly recognized as fact that "By agreement, the clerical forces
 have exclusive rights to the above" - referring to the
 transporting of T&E crews at Flint. In that letter of instruction,
 the author clearly set forth a penalty payment provision to cover
 situations when no clerk was available to perform the transporting
 service. NO ONE in this case has identified the authority of the
 author of this "in-house" communication to make such statements and
 commitments. Neither has the Carrier challenged or in any way
 questioned either the authority of the author of this letter or the
 applicability of the contents of the letter of instruction to
 situations as described therein. In fact, Carrier has not uttered
 one word either in favor of or in objection to the applicability of
 or the presentation and consideration of this document. The Board,
 therefore, accepts this document as valid and proper and
 dispositive in this case.

The Board has carefully read the opinions and conclusions as set forth in Award 24492 and finds nothing with which to take exception. Apparently, the "cease and desist" order as set forth in that Award did not have the intended effect. Therefore, as

expressed in Award 24492, the economic sanctions properly
 applicable for a disregard of the provisions of the
 negotiated agreement are proper in this case. Fortunately for
 the Board, the parties themselves have identified the
 sanctions guidelines which are to be applicable in this type
 of situation at this location. However, upon examination of the
 individual claims as submitted in this case, we find that several
 of the claim dates include two separate payment requests for what
 amounts to the same basic transportation service function. For
 example, Claimant Henry on August 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 16 and September
 16, 1991, requests two separate payments, namely, 20 minutes for
 the pick-up of one crew member at the roundhouse and the balance of
 the crew at the service center plus 1 hour for the trip to the
 motel. The reverse of this procedure is found in the delivery of
 the crews from the motel to the service center and roundhouse.
 Form 1 Award No. 30693
 Page 4 Docket No. CL-31131
 95-3-93-3-69

Similarly, Claimant Sixberry does the same in his August 24, 1991 claim.


After consideration of all the factors present in this case, and in support of the opinions expressed in Award 24492, the Board concludes that each of the named Claimants is entitled to payment of 1 hour at the respective pro-rata rate on each of the claim dates set forth in the subject of this dispute. Those claims for 20 additional minutes on certain of the claim dates are denied because, in the Board's opinion, the action described in each of those instances constituted a part of the continuous crew handling service for which the 1 hour payment is applicable.


Carrier is once again reminded, as was done in Award 24492, that the use of clerical employees to transport crews at this particular location is an agreement provision which can only be changed by negotiation between the parties.








This Board, after consideration of the dispute -identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Third Division


                            Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of January 1995.