Third, the Carrier takes exception to the following of the Claimant employee identified as Louis Murry not being given a matching employee ID for verification. The Carrier's records indicate 2 employees with L. Murry for names and different employee IDs therefore the Organization has failed to provide the requisite information for Carrier to properly investigate what is alleged.

Without waiving any of the above objections, the Carrier will proceed further as to the validity of this claim.

Investigation into the alleged violation finds Carrier cannot investigate the claim as filed with Claimant name Louis Murry with no ID number being given.

Your request that Claimant receive 6 hours of additional straight time at his current rate of pay for travel is excessive and without merit."

"Vile cannot accept the decision . . . and are therefore appealing this claim to you for review and consideration ....

First, Ms. Johnson is in error to suggest our initial claim is `out of time under Rule 42A . . . .'

The failure of the Company to pay the claimant's travel time appears to [be] a continuation of what is now a growing pattern that includes a long list of examples of the Carrier's outright refusal to live up to the intent of the mutual agreement and pay the employee that to which he is entitled. There can be no dispute the work location was in fact moved from Whitefish to Ritzville. That move would, pursuant to the clear agreement provisions, entitle the claimant to the hours claimed. Now, in the instant claim, the Company refused to pay [Claimant] that to which he is entitled as an

employee who made a move from one tie-up point to another. This is in violation of the clear language of our mutual agreement.

We do not believe there will be any dispute as to the essential facts, at least none have been identified. That is, [Claimant] was required to change work location from Whitefish, Montana to Ritzville, Washington following his work day on September 20, 2003. Claimant was not paid any travel time compensation for this change. The `transportation provided' did take six (6) hours claimed to make the trip. The facts and the position of the Organization are as expressed in the initial claim, which is incorporated herein by reference.

First, let us state that Claimant Murray's name was misspelled on the initial claim . . .

Gang RP-12 was created as a District Gang under the terms of our Agreement. Accordingly, it operates only on Seniority District and only district employees are entitled to bid to the gang. When it was established it was established with mobile headquarters, lodging provided by the Carrier, pursuant to Rules 38 and 35. Both of those rules has as their origin `National Board Award 298.'

It is undisputed that RP - 12 [Claimant Murray was required to move between Carrier designated work locations as cited in the initial claim. It is also undisputed that the Carrier failed to and continues to refuse to compensate claimant for the travel time involved in the change of work locations.

Rule 35E is a clear and unambiguous provision that states, in pertinent part:

`Each employee furnished means of transportation by the Company will be paid the amount of travel time computed at straight time rate from one work point to another which the conveyance on which transportation made available by the

"The Organization alleges the Carrier violated the Agreement on September 20, 2003 when claimant was not compensated for travel time from Whitefish, Montana to Ritzville, Washington.

The Organization has submitted an overreaching claim alleging that the Carrier violated Rule 35(e) of the Agreement by failing to compensate the claimant for travel from one location to another. As Ms. Johnson stated in her declination of this claim, the Organization's claim is without merit because the claimant was compensated for travel from one location to another (Whitefish, Montana to Home to Ritzville, Washington) in the form of the weekend travel allowance.

The Claimant did not travel from Whitefish, MT to Ritzville, WA on Saturday, September 20, 2003, they traveled home and that travel is compensated under the auspice of the weekend travel agreement,

not Rule 35(e) of the Labor Agreement. Any employee that actually travelled between Whitefish MT and Ritzville WA over the weekend would have been paid for the travel. Payment of travel time from Whitefish to Ritzville would result in a duplicative payment and the Agreement did not contemplate such a windfall payment.

Rule 35(f) further supports the Carrier on why this claim is invalid, as the Organization is alleging the Claimant would be paid travel to their home and work location. Rule 35(f) states:

`Employees will not be allowed time while traveling in the exercise of seniority, or between their homes and designated assembling point, or for other personal reasons.'

The damages claimed are excessive. Claimant was compensated $225.00 in weekend travel allowance . . . and is not entitled to travel time for the same period of time."

"The facts of this claim are not in dispute. This claim centers upon the Carrier's refusal to pay Claimant travel time as is set forth in Rule 35 E when Carrier designated lodging facilities were changed from Whitefish, Montana to Ritzville, Washington, on September 20, 2003. That date was the assigned rest day for Claimant, when he was not actually at work. There is no dispute that the Gang to which Claimant was assigned, RP-12, was a mobile gang with mobile lodging facilities provided by the Carrier in the form of hotel rooms. There is no dispute that the transportation provided by the Carrier took six hours to complete the trip.

The Organization rejects your description of the payment sought under the provisions of Rule E as a `windfall.' To quote from your letter of April 22, 2004, you state:

The Carrier is asserting that the move occurred during week-end rest when the Claimant did not actually travel from Point A (Whitefish) to Point B (Ritzville), but rather traveled from Point A (Whitefish) to Point C (Claimant's place of residence) and only then to Point B (Ritzv0le). The Carrier asserted during conference that because Claimant failed to travel directly from Point A to Point B, Claimant was not entitled to the travel time as claimed. The Organization conceded that the Claimant did indeed travel as asserted by the Carrier, from Point A to Point C and then to Point B [Citations to SBA 298 Interpretation 9, 20, and 18 omitted]

Interpretations 9, 10 and 18 are directly on point to the case at hand . . . The issue has already been decided decades ago. The Carrier is obligated to pay the time as it was claimed ....

Claimant was not travelling in exercise of seniority, nor was the time claimed for any travel between Claimant's residence and designated assembling points. The claimed time is for the time Carrier conveyance took in making the change in Carrier designated assembling points. As the claimed time is for neither time between Claimant's home and Carrier designated assembly point, nor for travel resulting from an exercise of seniority, Rule 35 F would not be applicable in this case."

The question before the Board involves travel on an off day while assigned to a mobile crew that moves headquarters. At issue is the effect that the Claimant's trip home on his off days had upon the travel time payment under Rule 35 E. Had the Claimant not gone home, he would be entitled to the pay for travel time. However, he went home. The Organization maintains that the trip home had no effect upon the travel time payment and points to the question and answer found in the Award of Arbitration Board No. 298. The Carrier counters that the Organization's reliance is misplaced given the 1996 Agreement. The Carrier continues that, under Award 298, duplicate payments are prohibited. The Claimant got a travel payment to go home and should not also get a travel time payment.

Form 1 Page 9

"Each employee furnished means of transportation by the Company will be paid the amount of travel time computed at straight time rate from one work point to another which the conveyance on which transportation made available by the Company would take regardless of how any employee actuaUy travels from one work point to another."

"Question: Employees are working in a gang at point `A.' The work point is changed from `A' to `B' outside of work hours or on a rest day or holiday while employees are not actually at work. Employees are not required by the carrier to ride in the camp cars and elect to travel from `A' to `B' in their own automobiles. May Carrier avoid payment of travel from `A' to `B' under I-C-1?

Answer: See paragraph 2 of the memorandum of Board conference of September 30,1967, which reads as follows: `Under the provisions of Section I-C-1, each man will be paid the amount of travel time from one point to another which the conveyance offered by the carrier would take regardless of how any man actually travels from one point to the other."'

"Question: Carrier moves the work point from `A' to `B' while the employee has gone home on a holiday or rest day. Employee left work point `A' but returns to work point `B' after having gone home. May carrier avoid payment of travel time from 'A' to 1131 because employee traveled from `A' to `C' to `B' rather than going straight to `B' before going home at `C'?

Answer: No. See paragraph 2 of the memorandum of Board conference of September 30, 1967, which reads as follows: `Under

09-3-NRAB-00003-0050039 (05-3-39)