Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

THIRD DIVISION

Award No. 43423 Docket No. MW-42541 19-3-NRAB-00003-140186

The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Paul Betts when award was rendered.

(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division - (IBT Rail Conference

PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (

(Union Pacific Railroad Company

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier failed and refused to compensate Mr. M. Clevenger for time spent traveling in connection with the change of work location of System Gang 9049 from Chicago, Illinois to Tucson, Arizona between February 9 and 11, 2013 (System File J-1336U-501/1580506).

(2) As a consequence of the above-stated violation, Claimant M.

Clevenger shall be allowed forty-four (44) hours' pay at his applicable straight time rate."

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 hearing thereon.

The facts giving rise to this claim are not in dispute. The Claimant worked on Gang 3018, exercised his seniority, and bid on a speed swing operator position for Gang 9049, which he was awarded. The bulletin was posted January 31, 2013, closed February4,2013,andeffectiveFebruary 7,2013. Thebulletinindicatedtheworkgroup would start on February 12, 2013 at 06:00 CST. Under the comments section of the bulletin it stated "1 gang move to Tucson from 8 - 11 show up on twelve." Gang 9049 observed travel days on February 8 - 11, 2013 for a move from Illinois to Tucson, AZ. Gang 9049, including the Claimant, then started the new assignment on February 12, 2013. Gang 9049 was paid for the time spent traveling in connection with the change of work from IL to AZ. The Claimant was not paid for his travel time from IL to AZ.

The issue before the Board is whether the Claimant should be compensated for histraveltimefromILtoAZ. Inessence,theBoardmustdecideiftheClaimantbecame part of Gang 9049 on the effective date of the bulletin, February 7, 2013, or at the time he officially reported to work in AZ on February 12, 2013. Rules 36 and 18 were cited by the parties as relevant to the issue at hand.

The Organization argues that the plain language of Rule 36 clearly mandates travel pay for the time the Claimant spent traveling from IL to AZ. The effective date of the bulletin was February 7, 2013; the Claimant became a member of Gang 9049 on February 7, 2013, and should therefore be compensated for his travel.

The Carrier argues that an employee is not entitled to allowances nor compensation of a position prior to reporting for the position. Here, the employee did not initially report for work with the new Gang until February 12, 2013. Under Rule 18, an employee is prohibited from causing extra expense to the Carrier in the exercise of seniority. Although the Organization maintains the Claimant became part of Gang 9049 on February 7, 2013, the Carrier argues the Claimant was not released from Gang 3018 until the end of shift on February 8, 2013.

After careful consideration of the record, theBoard finds the Organization failed to meet its burden. The Claimant did not become part of Gang 9049 until he reported for his assignment on February 12, 2013. Although the Organization argues the Claimant became a member of Gang 9049 on February 7, 2013, it is undisputed the Claimant was still working with Gang 3018 on February 8, 2013. The Carrier argues the Claimant is not due the claimed compensation because he was exercising his seniority to Gang 9049. The Board agrees. In relevant part, Rule 18 states "Employees accepting positions in the exercise of their seniority rights will do so without expense to the Company…" Such is the case here. Based upon all the above, the claim must be denied.

Although the Board may not have repeated every itemof documentary evidence nor all the arguments presented, we have considered all the relevant evidence and arguments presented in rendering this Award.

AWARD

Claim denied.

ORDER

This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Third Division

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 1st day of March 2019.