The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Dennis J. Campagna 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.
On May 11, 2002, the Claimant, who at all relevant times worked as an Assistant Signalman, was sent to Salt Lake City, Utah, for the purpose of attending a training class. Attendance at this training class was a precondition to attaining the status of a Signalman. Due to the fact that this training facility had a Monday through Friday schedule, ft was necessary for the Claimant to travel on a Sunday in order to be in attendance at Monday's class. However, Sunday May 11, 2002 was a designated rest day for the Claimant. He was thereinafter paid, at is straight time rate, for all hours traveled between his headquartered location in Pocatello, Idaho, and Salt Lake City, Utah.
On June 5, 2003, the Organization filed the instant claim in which it maintained that the Carrier improperly paid the Claimant. In this regard, the Organization maintains that because the Claimant was required to travel on one of his rest days, he was deprived of the two rest days to which he was entitled. Accordingly, the Organization asserts that pay, at the rate of time and one-half, is required in this case for all time the Claimant spent traveling on May 11, 2002, his rest day.
Following a careful review of the record, with particular attention paid to the cases cited by the Carrier as well as the Organization in support of their respective positions, and for the reasons that follow, we find that the issue before the Board has been litigated by the Organization on prior occasions in the past without success.
In Third Division Award 36628, the Board denied the claim of a Claimant who maintained that because he was required to travel outside of his regularly assigned hours in order to attend an FRA Instruction Class, the Carrier was obligated to pay him at his time and one-half rate. During the on-property handling of that case, the Organization conceded the "long standing" practice of pay, at the straight-time rate, for travel time when such travel was affected by some travel medium other than a Company vehicle. In denying the claim, the Board noted: Form I Award No. 39360
Finally, the Board finds significant the fact that during the on-property handling of the instant case, the Organization was unable to dispute the historical practice of compensating employees at their straight time rate for travel time that occurs on their rest days for the purpose of attending training sessions. It is clear, therefore, that this longstanding practice, without objection, evinces the Organization's acquiesce with the Carrier's position herein.
Finally, the Board reviewed Third Division Award 34174 and finds that it does not change the determination made herein. In that case, the Claimant was assigned to a headquartered gang held away from its headquarters post. The Claimant spent nine hours on his assigned rest day traveling from his headquarters point to his designated work location. He was compensated at the straight time rate for all time traveled. In his appeal, the Board granted his claim on the basis that because the Claimant was required to travel on his rest day, he was deprived of the full two rest days to which he was entitled. Without discussing the merits of this particular Award, Award 34174 is easily distinguished. In this regard, unlike the Claimant in Award 34174 who was traveling from one work location to another on his assigned rest day, the Claimant in the instant Form I Award No. 39360
matter was traveling in order to attend a training class. As noted in the case discussions above, training classes have not been considered "work" or "service" due to the mutuality of interest exception. Accordingly, Rule 19 applies, entitling the Claimant to straight time pay for time traveled on his rest day.
the Third Division and Public Law Board Awards noted above are controlling precedent and pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel, the instant claims do not merit a sustaining award. There is no evidence in the record that the above Awards, deemed relevant by the Board, are palpably erroneous, thus warranting their rejection by the Board. Given the identity of parties, facts and Rules, the Board finds that the above cited Awards are controlling, and the holdings of each must be followed in the instant matter.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.