Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 37723
Docket No. SG-36908
06-3-01-3-476
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Gerald E. Wallin when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Union Pacific Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the Union Pacific Railroad:
Claim on behalf of J., C. Hernandez, J. Garza, and J. C. Franks for
payment of $297.00 each. Account Carrier violated the current
Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rules 36 and 58, when on June
7 and 8, 2000 Carrier required the Claimants to travel from El Paso
to Houston, Texas in their personal automobiles and then failed to
compensate them for doing so. Carrier's File No. 1240502. General
Chairman's File No. S-36-045. BRS File Case No. 11710-UP."
;FINDINGS:
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 were given due notice of bearing thereon.
Form 1 Award No. 37723
Page 2 Docket No. SG-36908
06-3-01-3-476
The operative facts underlying this claim are not in dispute. The Claimants
were working on Gang 2126. Their positions were abolished on May 29, 2000. They
exercised their seniority to displace onto a mobile gang that was governed by Rule
36 for certain expense reimbursements. They gave proper notification of their
intention to displace onto Zone Gang 2637 that was working in El Paso, Texas. The
record establishes that the Claimants drove their personal automobiles from
Houston to El Paso to report for work on Zone Gang 2637 on June 7, 2000. They
each claim entitlement to a $297.00 mileage expense reimbursement per Rule 36 -
TRAVELING GANG WORK, which reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
"Zone gang employees will be reimbursed for actual and necessary
expenses (lodging and meals). Employees will receive $15.00
incidental expense allowance per day worked. Employees will
receive 59.00 for every twenty rive (25) miles traveled from home to
_work at the be2innine and end of each work period. The Carrier
will give employees notice of work schedules and locations, except in
emergency circumstances, so they can plan their travel." (Emphasis
added)
The Organization contends that the Rule requires reimbursement for the
mileage claimed under the operative circumstances.
The Carrier disputes the Organization's interpretation of Rule 36. In
addition, it cited the content of other Rules in support of its position. First, the
Carrier maintains that Rule 36 applies only to members of Zone Gangs. Until the
Claimants physically assumed their intended displacements, they were not members
of Zone Gang 2637. Accordingly, they were not entitled to the mileage benefit until
they completed their exercise of seniority by their physical presence in El Paso to
report for work. The Carrier pointed out that the Claimants' displacement date of
June 7, 2000 did not coincide with either the beginning or end of a "work period"
within the meaning of Rule 36. According to the Carrier, this language provided
further support for its position that travel in connection with an exercise of seniority
displacement is not covered by Rule 36.
Form I Award No. 37723
Page 3 Docket No. SG-36908
06-3-01-3-476
The Carrier cited Rule 54 in support of its overall position. The Rule reads:
"Employees accepting positions in the exercise of their seniority
rights will do so without causing expense to the railroad."
The record does not establish where the precise beginning and end of the
work period fell, only that June 7 was somewhere in-between the end points, we find
the circumstances support the Carrier's position.
Given the foregoing discussion, we find that the Organization has not
sustained its burden to prove; that the applicable Rule language required the Carrier
to pay the instant claim as stated. Accordingly, the claim must be denied.
AWARD
Claim denied.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders
ithat an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of February 2006.