The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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.
The Claimant was assigned to Force 5GY1, a tie gang of approximately 50 employees. The gang was assigned at Covington, Virginia, and the employees were provided with a per diem allowance for meals and lodging. Form 1 Award No. 31151
On August 23, 1990, the majority of the gang moved from Covington to its new headquarters at Balcony Falls, Virginia. This major portion of the gang thereafter moved to Lynchburg, Virginia, and thereafter to Gladstone, Virginia. During this period, the Claimant and several other employees remained at Covington to complete required work in that area. The parties are in dispute as to whether the Claimant and the other employees accepted this assignment voluntarily or were simply directed to remain in Covington for this work. While in Covington, the Claimant continued to receive a per diem allowance.
The Organization argues that it was improper to split the gang in this manner. The Claimant seeks travel time and pay as if he were required to travel to Covington from each of the three locations where the majority of the gang was located. There is no evidence, however, that he actually undertook such travel rather than, as before, remaining at Covington.
Third Division Award 30398, involving the same parties, covers a virtually identical situation in which several members of a gang were directed to remain at Coal Run, Kentucky, while the remainder of the gang moved its headquarters to Russell, Kentucky. Award 30398 found no Rule violation in this arrangement, and the Board finds no basis to reach a different conclusion. As further explanation, Award 30398 commented as follows:
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made. Form 1 Award No. 31151