AWARD NO . 18 CASE ND. 10 PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE:



STATEMENT OF CIJIIM:

    "Claim or the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:


        (1) The Carrier violsted the Agreement when it failed and refused to compensate Mr. Donald Harries for work performed 3n going to and from his work location and assembling point prior to and continuous with his regular assigned work period on November 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28 and December 1 and 2, 1975 (System File 81-1-237).


        '?) Mr. Donald Harriss be allowed two (2) hours' pay at his time and one-half rate on each of the dates set forth within Part (1) of this claim."


OPINION OF BOARD:
 Review of the record shows that there is no dispute regarding the factual background of this claim and that the controversy narrows to the question whether tune spent by Mr. Harriss going to and from his work site is payable under Rule 43, as contended by Carrier, or under Rule 30 as urged by the Organization. On the claim dates in November and December, 1975, Claimant Harries, a machine operator hea.dquartered at DeKalb, Illinois, with assigned hours 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., was instructed by his supervisor to report to a work site at Nelson, Illinois, at 7:00 a.m. and not to 1 cave the work site until 3:30 p.m. It is undisputed that in order to comply with these orders Mr. Harriss was required to leave his headquarters at 6:00 a.m. and did not return to headquarters until 4:30 p.m.., i.e.,, he spent one
 hour before r

 regularly a d hours in transit between his head-

 quarters tote work site. r each of a da:;,es in questi they Claimant
 rtes two ho of overtias, i. e. two hues at the tine half rate.
 Carrier d to pair the overtime rate for the 18 errs involved and offe in
 s to pair straight time, citing a 4of the Agreement. The positions of the
 p set forth with clarity in the exchange of correspond s betw the
 General reran and the Director of r Relations (Non-opora ). Accordingly.,

 these letters are reproduced herein as follows a

 * 1 hereby decl the proposal of Dioft Xanager ?. V. Yocum
 to c ate Mr. Don Harriss at his straight tine rate for work
 perfo in going to and from his work location and assembly point
 prior to and continuous with his regular work period.

 "Mr. Harries was instructed by the direction of ext. Xr. N.
 g, to report to scan, Illinois at 7:00 an and not to leave the
 job site until 300 pit. Mr. Harries,, who is a shine operator, was
 assigned this position by bulletin with-TeRalb, Illinois as his
 headquarters. The assigned hours were 7 M an to 3 00 ps with a
 one- meal period (12 to to 12 !pa) .

 "'the assembly pant for section and/or maintenance of way cress has always been their headquarters point. Their work day as well their titre started and ended at the assembly point. Any time prior or following and continuous with their regular assigned work period vas paid for at their overtime rate in cclianoe with Was 30 and 34 of the current agreement. Therefore, by direct orders of the Carrier ()Ir. fit. Berg) to be at Nelson at 700 an mud not to leave until. 3:pa it was necessary for Mr. Harries to leave his headquarters an hour before this regular assigned starting tine and return to his headquarters an hour after his regular quits tine. This is work performed in going to and from his work location and assembly point prior to and continuous with his regular work period.

 "Mr. Harries, therefore, should be compensated at his overtime rate .Pot the dates of November 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 2$,, December 1 and 2 and for everyday thereafter for work performed in going to and from his work location (Nelson, 111inois) and assembly point (Delalb, Illinois) prior to and continuous with his regular assigned work period.
"Please advise.
Yours truly,
fsf S. C. Zimmeraan
 General. Chairman"
                                                    3.


        "Please refer to your letter of January 2?, 19'76 appealing claim

        that Ton Harries, Machine Operator, 'be compensated at his over

        time rate for the dates of November 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28,

        December 1, and 2 and for every day thereafter for work performed

        in going to and from his work location (Nelson, Illinois) and

        assembly point (Delab, is) prior to and continuous with his

        regular assigned work period.'


        "It is noted in your letter you cite Rules 30 and 34 in support of this claim. Your attention is called to the fact that both of the cited rules deal with 'work' while the time claimed was for traveling.


        "In connection with case it is W opinion that Rule 43 of the collective bargaining agreement applies. Your specific attention is called to that part of Rule 43 red:


            'Travel or waiting time during the recognized overtime hours at here station will be paid for at the pro rata rate.'


        "It is accordingly my opinion that the offer made to you by Division Manager Tocum to dispose of this claim by an allowance of the hours claimed at straight tine rate was correct and in accordance with the applicable rule. I am therefore agreeable to the previous offer made by Mr. locus to dispose of this claim.


        "Due to failure of the cited rules to support the claim for overtime rate I an tot agreeable to an allowance of the claim as appealed in your letter of January 27, 1976. Much claim failing support of the controlling agreement is declined in it's entirety.

                                    Yours truly,


                                    /s/ W J fremon

                                    Director of Labor Relations

                                    (Non-operating)"

From the foregoing it is clear that the dispute boils down to whether the 18 hours claimed is payable at the straight tine rate under Rule 43 as "travel time" or payable at the time and one-half rate under Rules 30 and 34 as "time worked." "lie Rules relied upon by the parties in this dispute read in pertinent part as follows:
                          i


            "Rule 25 "` Beginning and Enof Deer


    "Employes' time x311 start and end at a regular designated assembly point for each class of employes. such as the tool housme, outfit car or shop.


            "Rule 30 - Overtime


    "Time worked continuous with and following a regular eight-hour period shall be computed on the actual minute basis and paid tar at tire and one-half rats, with double time on actual minute basis after sixteen haute of work in axes twenty-four hour period computed from starting time of employe's regular shift.


    "Employes will be compensated an if on continuous duty in all asses where the interval of release fir duty doss net exceed one hour."

            NNII

            *We 34 - Service in Advance of Regular Assignment


    "layss required to report in advance of regular starting time for work

    continuous with regular assignment x31.1 be compensated at rate and one-half

    for such advance tiers, with minima or one hour.

    loop

    "Ruts 43 - Travel


'Oftcept as provided in Rules 42 and 4'i, entplayes who era required by direc
 tion of the Company to leave their home station x311 be allowed actual time
 far traveling or waiting during regular working haute. All haute worked
 rill be paid for in accordance with practice at home station. (ravel or
 wait time during the reco zed overtime hours at have station x311 be
 paid for at the ra rata rate. If, during the time on a mad, a man is
 re from duty and is permitted to go to bed for five hours or mare
 such relief time x312 not be paid far, provided that in no case shall he
 be paid for a fatal of less than eight hours each calendar day, when such
 irregular service prevents the employ* from making his regular daily hours
 at home station." (hasis added.)
 It is evident beyond reasonable argument that the rules in dispute herein are
 in conflict and moat be reconciled in line with the intent of the parties. Both
 sides cite a formidable array of Awards as authoritative and precedent for their
 opposing views. Close analysis shows that mast of these moat be rejected either be
 cause of irrelevancy or incaherency. Thus, sustaining Awards 4850 and 10686 offered
 by the Brotherhood are not useful because there is no competent evidence that a
 travel time rule such as we have before us was at issue in those cases. Award 21$3
 cited by Brotherhood and Award 15973 oifered by Carrier are so distinguishable on their facts from the case at bar that they are of no help to us. Awards 13305 cited by Carrier and 18033 cited by Brotherhood are both so lacking in analysis that we can only assume they were summarily decided and they are worthless as precedents.
 The viable Awards which remain for consideration have reconciled the obvious conflict of overtime and reporting rules with travel time rules like those before us in this case, in one of two ways: (1) by resort to past practice to determine the intent of the parties. See Third Division Awards 4581, 6668, 8825, 9263, 9983 and 13359; or (2) fn the complete absence of any evidence of practice, by resort to that rule of contract construction which holds that a "special" rule prevails over a "general" rule. See Award 13286. All of the Awards based upon practice have found that the overtime payment was required. The single case to the contrary held that the travel time rule was "specific" and governed the "general" overtime rule.
 Only one of the pertinent Awards cited by the parties does not fall into either of the foregoing schools of thought. Rather, Award 18424 tries unsuccessfully to bridge both schools. In that Award the Third Division found that there was insufficient record evidence from which to determine past practice, yet also made a determination that the travel time rule was a "general" rather than a "specific" rule. In the face of those anomalous interim findings, the Division proceeded to turn the cage apparently on the logistics of the travel involved, finding therein some indicia of mutual intent that the time at issue was "time worked." It is worth commenting that the Division in 18424 cited as support for its decision most of those Awards representing the "past practice school"; notwithstanding its express holding that the record was inadequately developed to make any findings relative to practice. In the face of such confusion it is little wonder that the parties find themselves at odds over the interpretation and application of rules such as we have before us.
                                                  6.

Analyzing the record evidence in light of the cited precedents, we find initially that the "specific versus general" approach is of little utility herein. Such pigeonhole categorization has the appeal of simplicity but, leaving aside self-sees descriptions, there is no evidentiary basis to support a finding that Rule 30 is egeneral" and Rule 43 is "speoial." Iven if such were proven, we cannot conceive how Rule 34 could be construed as less express and specific than Rule 43. In this latter connection we note that the Division in Award 13286 was not faced with a rule like Rule 34, but rather with only an overtime and a travel time rule.

    In light of the foregoing, we might expect that this case should be governed by

the principles enunciated in Third Division Awards 4581, 6668, 8825, 9263, 9983 and 13359. We have noted that the nods of travel. was not placed in issue in this case as it was in sore of those cited. Rut even in those cases the node of transportdion
 ep r se was not determinative of the outcome, rather it was discussed in order to establish the practice of paying overtime rather than straight byte rates for tine spent traveling to and from assembly points and work site at Carrier's direction so as to be at the work site at starting tine and not to leave before quitting tine.
 Unfortunately, however, the apparently easy answer of reliance upon practice to resolve the conflict in the rules is foreclosed to us in this case. This is so because the record is inadequately developed to permit a clear determination relative to practice in similar fact situations on this property in the past. The Organization asserts and the Carrier denies such practice but neither offers any proof. The onus of this state of equilibrium falls upon the Organization as the party with the burden of proof on the point.
 Given the state of the record and in consideration of the established precedents governing such cases, we are left no alternative but to dismiss this claim for lack of proof. In so doing we emphasize that our holding is dictated by evidentiary
 inadequacies relative to past practice. We make no affirmative determination herein relative to the proper reconciliation of Rules 30, 34 and 43. Such a determination is not possible on this record. FIRDs
 Public Law Hoard No. 1844, upon the whole record and all of the evidence, finds and holds as follows:
 1. That the Carrier and Flaploye involved in this dispute are, respectively, Carrier and ploys wig the weaning of the Railway Labor Act;
    2. that the Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and


    3. that the claim must be dismissed for lack of proof.


      AWARD


Claim dismissed.

 H. H. G. HarpHamper, ExploVe Member
Dana E. Eische"ti; ' i naanP

 .
 Iq ~IV
 .fit. Schmiege; Carrember