1225 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.VV.. YrJASf11NGTON, D. C.2006/AREA CORE: 201-659-9320
WILLIAM H. DEMPSEY, Chairman H. E. GREER, Vice Chairman ROBERT BROWN, Via Chairman
W. L. BURNER, Jr., Director of Research J. F. GRIFFIN, Director of Labor Relations
 D. P. LEE, General Counsel T. F. STRUNCK, Administrator of Disputes Committees


Mr. Irwin M. Lieberman
 91 Westover Avenue
 Stamford, Connecticut 06902

 Mr. Nicholas H. Zumas
 1990 M Street, N. W.
 Washington, D. C. 20036

 Mr. Robert 11. O'Brien
 73 Tremont Street
 Boston, Massachusetts 02108

 Gentlemen:

 There are attached copies of Award Nos. 402 to 404, inclusive, dated October 21, 1976, rendered by Special Board of Adjustment No. 605 established by Article VII of the February 7, 1965 National Agreement.

                            /,?j y_/


                                    L'


cc: Chairman - Employes' National
 Conference Committee (10)
 Messrs.
 C. L. Dennis (2)
 E. J. Neal (3)
 S. G. Bishop (4)
 C. J. Chamberlain (2)
 H. C. Crotty (2)
 R. W. Smith (2)
 M. B. Frye (21,
 W W. Altus (2)
 J. Berta (2)
 R. K. Guinn, Jr. (3)
 W. F. Euker
 T. F. Strunck
                                        AWARD N0. 402

                                        Case No. CL-67-E


                SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMRNT N0. 605


PARTIES) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Cl1hrks,
 TO ) FreightHandlers, Express and Station Employes
 DISPUTE) and - s
 Central Vermont Railway, Inc.
 1

 QUESTIONS (1) Did the Carrier violate the terms of Section 6 of
 AT ISSUE: the Washington Job Protection Agreement of May 21, 1936
 and the Implementing Agreement of December 14, 1971,
 when it failed to include travel time compensation earned
 during the test period in determining the average monthly
 compensation of Telegrapher Mr. J. L. Luneau2
 (2) Shall the Carrier be required to compensate Mr. J.
 L. Luneau his monthly displacement allowance reflecting
 travel time compensation earned during his test period?
 OPINION
 OF BOARD: On December 14, 1971 the parties entered into an Agreement
 governing the implementation of a Carload Center at St. Albans,
 Vermont which provided, inter alia, that employees adversely
 affected by the implementation were entitled to the benefits of Section 6 of
 the Washington Job Protection Agreement of May 21, 1936. Claimant herein held
 a swing Agent-Telegrapher Mobile Agent position from March 22, 1973 until
 March 10, 1974 at which time his position was abolished and he displaced on a
 Telegrapher-Clerk position. Claimant worked that position until June 8, 1974
 at which time he was displaced as a result of the coordination and he was enti
 tled to the benefits of Section 4(a) of the December 14, 1971 Agreement. The
 issue herein relates to the exclusion of travel time compensation by the Car
 rier during the test period of June 9, 1973 to June 8, 1974. Travel time was
 an element in the compensation of the Agent-Telegrapher Mobile Agent position
 but was not part of the compensation for the Telegrapher-Clerk position.

 The organization argues that paid travel time is clearly considered as compensation in determining displacement allowances; Section 9(c) of the 1936 Agreement clearly states that the displacement allowance shall be determined by computing the total compensation received during the last twelve months. The Organization cites Docket Nos. 62~and 65 of the Washington Job Protection Agreement Committee as authority holding that compensation for the test period includes overtime and arbitraries as well as the rate of pay. It is concluded that travel time must be considered as an arbitrary since it does not fall in the other two categories. Petitioner also cites Award No. 18 of Special Board No. 174 which held that pay for traveling and waiting time is part of the daily compensation for the assignment in question and should be part of vacation compensation.
                                        AWARD N0. 402

                                        Case No. CL-67-E


                          _ 2 _


Carrier contends that there is nothing in Section 6(c) of the Washington Job Protection Agreement which alludes to travel time and no decisions under that Agreement. dealing with travel time. Carrier asserts that since the question has never been raised, it must be concluded that " .... neither travel time nor deadheading have ever been considered as part of the 'average monthly compensation' or 'average time paid for' in fixing the precoordination compensation." Carrier also relies on the same Decisions of the Washington Job Protection Agreement Committee as the Organization: Docket Nos. 62 and 65; Carrier argues that the Committee, in those Decisions, recognized the importance of considering the same elements in both the pre and post-coordination periods in order to fix the proper displacement allowance. Carrier emphasized that deadheading and travel time are not part of Claimant's compensation rate in the post-coordination period. Carrier also states that the reasoning in Docket Nos. 62 and 65 referred to above recognized that all overtime should not be considered in the test period earnings and the post-coordination allowance, and if that is true, the same principle should be applied to arbitraries.

 The significant issue in this dis~ute is whether the loss of travel pay was as a result of the coordination. Section 6(a) provides that an employee will not "be placed, as a result of the coordination, in a worse position with respect to compensation and rules governing working conditions than he occupied at the time of such coordination ...." In this case Claimant
 elected to take a position which did not include travel time three months low
 prior to the date he was affected by the coordination. It is clear that the
 loss of travel time earuings are not directly attributable to the station
 closure which resulted in Claimant Lcing displaced. 1r prior twerds, such -sn
                                                    ._,


103 and 137, we have held that the liability cf Carriers in situations s:cli as this is limited iu the consequences of the coordiq:,cions an' as a rare,J_lar-1.
 that the employees woi served position mmsi b._ as a re >ni t. of such ccorjination.
 While we make no findings ns to the iPClasiOD or ehcluslori o.` trav:1 time as a
 general proposition, in this case Carrier was correct in excluding such earn
 ings from the test period for the reasons indicated.

                        AWARD:


            The answer to both questions is "no".


R~RT !a

 I. M. Lieberman

 v 1~16

                      Neutral Member r1


Dated: Washington, D. C.
 October 21, 1976