PUBLIC LAW BOARD No. 1210 AWARD No. 7

PARTIES TO DISPUTE: Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
and
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
STATEb1ENT OF CLAIM: 1. Carrier violated the effective Agreement by failing
to allow travel time and car mileage to Class "A" Machine
Operator J. E. Beadles during the period beginning
August 21, 1974 and ending October 6, 1971, while he
was required to report for work at Logootee, Indiana.
2. Operator J. E. Beadles be now compensated for a total
of 42 hours at his straight time rate, plus a total of
1322 miles @ 10 cents per mile.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant worked his assignment from July 19, 1971, with
headquarters at Vincennes, Ind., until he went on two
weeks vacation beginning August 6, 1971. His surfacing
unit was working on Sub-division 4. Prior to going on
vacation Claimant was advised by his Supervisor that
said surfacing unit was being moved to sub-division 3
and on July 29, 1971, bulletin No. 92 was issued advertising
the position of Machine Operator (the position Claimant
worked on sub-division 4) with headquarters at Logootee,
Ind. No bids were received and the position was assigned to
an Operator ,junior to Claimant. Upon return from vacation,
Claimant exercises his seniority and displaced the junior
operator, referred to above, and proceeded to work the assign
ment out of Logootee until the job was abolished on October
20, 1971.
PL Board No. 1210 . (2) . , AwARD No 7 _ .

s I

The record shows that Claimant was personally notified by his supervisor that the work on sub-division 4 would be terminated and that the surfacing unit would be moved to sub-division 3. This move changed the character of the assignment in that the headquarters was changed from Vincennes to Logootee, Ind. and a near bulletin was issued advertising such change. The bulletin was issued several days prior to the date Claimant left for his vacation. It is a play on words to contend, under the circumstances herein involved, that Claimant was not aware of the change in headquarters or that the position of Electromatic Tamper Operator had not been re-bulletined. Obviously, when Claimant chose to displace the junior . operator he knew that the headquarters of the assignment

f

was Logootee and not Vincennes - he reported to work at Logootee. It is-inconsistant to argue that Claimant reported to work at the new location, on a different subdivision, exercised his displacement rights to the position with headquarters at Logootee, and yet maintained that his headquarters was still Vincennes. It is interesting to note, although not controlling, that the time and distance involved in traveling to Logootee was considerably less than to Vincennes, for which of course there was no claim. A thorough review of the record before us fails to show that the Agreement was violated and we will deny the claim.

PL~Board No. 1210 (3) AWARD No. 7

AWARD: Claim denied,

.·%;f!., CAG~!`i,~

' C. Ro ert Roadley, Neutral ,. oer

A; J.~unnen~nam, .~a ogee ~..eaoer L, W, Burks, Carrier Member

Baltimore, Marylaril ,
March 11, 1974