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.
Each of the above five claims is the same. In each, the Claimants were not paid a weekend travel allowance. The Claimants left work, went home and then returned to work and payment was refused. The Organization alleges a violation of Article XIV, Section 1 of the 1996 National Agreement when the Carrier, in violation of past practice and Agreement language, failed to pay the Claimants their travel allowance.
As specific example, there is no dispute that Claimant Rath ended his workweek at Willmar, Minnesota, and then drove 355 miles to his home residence in Tuttle, North Dakota. To begin his next workweek, he left his residence and traveled 116 miles to Vallley City, North Dakota, to work a new mobile gang assignment. His submitted payment of 471 miles to be paid under the Article XIV table of payments as a travel allowance was denied by the Carrier.
The Carrier states that the compensation under Article XIV is stated as a "round trip" under clearly enunciated conditions of the season start-up and end. The Carrier denied payment based on the fact that in the exercise of seniority the Claimant made two one-way trips and that is not compensated under Article XIV. According to the Carrier put it:
The Carrier held throughout the claim handling procedure that there was no practice of payment for these circumstances and no Agreement language violated.
Article XIV of the September 26, 1996 National Agreement, Section 1, Paragraph A states:
The Organization argues that the Agreement language mandates payment to the Claimants for travel allowance for the weekend travel incurred.
The language of the Article, supra, is clear on its face as to a travel allowance. It refers to employees "at the beginning of the work season" who are "required to travel from their homes to the initial reporting location and at the end of the season . . . return home." The language that follows acknowledges that the work may place them far from home and sets a table of payments, "[d]uring the work season" for employees "by the most direct highway route for each round trip" home.
There is no dispute between the parties on the core meaning of the language. Travel is paid if an employee is making one way trips at the beginning and end of the work season to a system regional gang and also if they are making round trip travel home to and from their assigned gang. What is in dispute at bar is that the employee was assigned to a System Regional Gang and traveled home. After being home, the employee returned to a different System Regional Gang. Had they not changed gangs through the exercise of seniority, there would be no dispute. The Carrier argues that the employee went to a new assignment on a one way trip not covered by Article XIV. The Organization states that this was a round trip back to a System Regional Gang, having nothing to do with the exercise of seniority. Form 1 Award No. 38009
The Board thoroughly analyzed all on-property materials, arguments and Awards. In line with the meaning of Article XIV, what is persuasive to the Board is that the intent of this Article is clear. After a complete evaluation, Arbitration Board No. 1114 concluded,, `°. . . that the travel allowance benefits of Article XIV of the September 26, 1996 National Agreement apply to all traveling employees. . . :' It was the intent of the parties to provide a travel allowance benefit to employees who through their work with System Regional Gangs found themselves during the work season far away from home. The travel allowance was intended for all employees who travel between their homes and various changing work locations at the start and end of workweeks. Those changed locations could develop for reasons of Carrier changes or seniority as negotiated language does not specify.
Accordingly, although there is support in prior payments, the language itself has no limiting condition its to seniority or other condition. Those who negotiated this language could easily have utilized such terminology on seniority changes, giving benefits only under express limited conditions. They did not do so. These are traveling employees and continue to be traveling employees after the exercise of their seniority to another System Regional Gang.
The Board carefully studied numerous Awards finding them not on point (Third Division Award 36718); involved with other pertinent issues; a lack of facts; other Rules; another Carrier (Third Division Award 36810 with Organization Dissent and Carrier Response); and with additional Letters of Agreement (Third Division Award 37477). In this dispute the Organization fully presented the factual base to support its position, including prior settlement claims .on point with the instant case. The Board is persuaded that the language of Article XIV and the facts at bar support a sustaining Award to Parts (1) through (5). For Parts (6) through (10), the Board sustains the requested allowance, but denies payment of any interest.
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.
CARRIER MEMBERS' DISSENT
TO
THIRD DIVISION AWARD 38009, DOCKET MW-37104
(Referee Zusman)
The Board relies on Arbitration Board No. 1114's award. That case had nothing to do with the dispute before this Board. The issue before Arbitration Board No. 1114 was, according to the Organization, whether "...the travel allowance benefits of Article XIV.., apply to all traveling employees ...." The arbitrator called the dispute to be decided, "...the narrow question of whether Article XIV Travel Allowances are only payable to regional and system-wide production gangs ...or whether such allowances are payable to all `traveling employees' ...." There was no dispute before the arbitrator in Arbitration Board No. 1114 dealing with what are the benefits of Article XIV. The case before this Board is not about whether the Claimant is covered by Article XIV. The issue is whether the Claimant is entitled to a round trip allowance under Section 1(a). The dispute concems the meaning of the language "round trip". There is nothing in Arbitration Board No. 1114's award about the meaning of the phrase "round trip."
As the record shows, the Board also erroneously places significance on prior payments, which were random, one time local level payments to settle claims without regard to their, actual merit. The Board ascribes precedential intent which is contrary to facts in the record.