· 1 ._ Case No.: 1 ·. ,. , _~.,i, .
 PARTIES TO. DISPUTE ,. _.


                    CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. ",; ;; ·','s

                    . o, .r . ~ It. I


    STATEMENT OF CLAIM _ _ _ _.. 'r',si'.


      First: that the agreement between the two parties,was and is

      still being violated. (Rules 11(a), 11(b), and Appendix 23, Item'

      19.)


      Second: that claimants R. P. Roper, E. Fry, T. H. McCord, M. D.

      Alley, R. C. Henderson, W. H. Taylor, A. A. Hardison, C. W.

      Norcross, C. Buford, B. Hardison, J. C. Davis, R. C. Franklin, H. _

      Atkins, J. Ward, W. L. Love, Jr., S. E. Stamper, C. R. Gore, P. K.,

      Bennett, B. G. Collins, W. L. Caldwell, J. E. Chatman, G. D.

      Gilliland, A. L. Brown, J. W. Malugin, R. L. Spencer, S. L.

      Holland, and V. A. Stanley, be paid $6.00 per day.


    FINDINGS

      , I

      Claimants were employed at the Carrier's System Rail Welding Plant at , -


Radnor Yard in Nashville, Tennessee. ,

I r' '


      The System Rail Welding Plant at Radnor Yard was established pursuant


                  , I


    to-a Memorandum Agreement dated January 29, 1965. This Memorandum Agreement


                                                          I

                                        , i

4(,~) 8_t3

 Once established and upon being awarded, the positions ·aill be considered as "System Service" assignments, according to Rule 11 of the Schedule Agreement, Rule 11 of the Schedule Agreement is hereby amended to include positions at Welding Plant, Radnor Yard,

 ,,;·...

 Nashville, Tennessee.

    The current Memorandum Agreement governing the yard, dated March 26,


1971, continues to provide that the positions are considered system service

 and that:

    19. Once established and upon being awarded, the positions will be considered as "system service" assignments, according to Rule 11 of the schedule Agreement. Rule 11 of the Schedule Agreement is hereby amended to include positions at Welding Plant, Radnor Yard, Nashville, Tennessee.


20. Employes who were not formerly employed in the old welding
 plant and whose residence is not in the Nashville Metropoli
 tan Area, will be allowed their actual necessary expenses for
 a period not to exceed 60 days. I '

 Rule 11(a) and (b) of the Agreement provide:

    SYSTEM SERVICE EMPLOYES


11(a) This group includes all employes who are regularly assigned to positions Of operators and assistant operators of machines listed in Ranks '3 and 4, Track Subdepartment; as provided in Rule 5(a); operators and assistant operators of machines listed in . Ranks 3,.4 and,5, Bridge ;and Building Subdepartmenf (except draw~ridge tgr~deYS, pumpezs,' watchmen, and truck'drivers), as , provide din'RU,le;5,(b); el ec~Xic welders and theit ,helpers.

 11(b)'"All employes included in section 11(a) 'above', by reference, when working,off their Superintendent's division shall be allowed actual necessary expenses for the first'60 calendar days.

 provided fhat the positions at,the Yard would.be·considered system service.

 assignments and:
 Thereafter they shall receive, in lieu of their actual expenses, an allowance-of $2.00 per calendar day for each day they are off their Superintendent's division, the Nashville Terminals to be considered part of the Nashville Division. For.the purpose of this rule electric welders 'ahd their helpers will be paid hereunder when they are assigned to work outside of their respective seniority districts. ,

    The issue to be decided in this dispute is whether'thelCarrier violated


the Agreement by not paying Claimants $6.00 per day; and if so, what~should,

 ,f . . I
 the remedy be.

 The position of the Organization is that the Carrier is in violation of the Agreement; but sits argument is somewhat murky. The Organization contends that activities between the two parties between 1959 and 1965 are irrelevant to this matter. The Organization cites the March 26, 1971

 Memorandum Agreement and notes that it "see[s] nothing in this agreement I'

 referring to an Electric Rail Welding Plant in Nashville, Tennessee." The implied argument seems to be that the Carrier has relied on an agreement which does not apply to the property in question. Finally, the Organization cites section 20 of the 1971 Memorandum and asserts that since that section precludes the receipt of expenses to employes living in the metropolitan Nashville area, that,,by,implicatiori Rules lI(a), 11 (b) and section 19 of the Memorandum must apply. Pursuant to those requirement, Claimants are

 entitled to $6.00 per,day.

 The position'ofthe Carrier is that there has been no violation of the Agreement and that~.Claimants arelnot entitled to the ,$6.00 per day claimedThe, Car,rigr,icon'tejids'that the; positions at Radnor yard are, ,and historically,
 L-II38-~3

 have been, treated as stationary 'positions, not floating ones. This means that the positions have never been covered by Rule-11. The,Carrier notes

 that, originally, camp cars were provided, for the employes ,'df the welding " ,,f ; ~ ,'t''~i''
 facility. The Carrier also cites the provision in the January 29,'1965 · .
 Memorandum Agreement which excepts Rule 11 (b) from application to the 4·
 employes 'at Nashville, who were allowed $12 per day 'for a period up to 45"1'

 days.

    In short, the Carrier contends that the January 29, 1965 Memorandum

Agreement included a compromise in which non-Nashville resident employes
 would receive system service assignments under Rule 11, but there were ·
 clearly defined expenses allowed by that Memorandum Agreement. Then, the
 1971 agreement increased the allowed expenses to actual expenses for 60
 days. These provisions were, however, in lieu of the provisions of Rule 11.

 After review of the entire record, the Board finds that the Carrier did

 not violate the Agreement.

    The Organization has not sustained its burden of proving a violation of

the Agreement. Indeed, it is not entirely clear what the position of the
 Organization is. ,Nevertheless, the carrier has shown by substantial
 credible evidence'in the record that there was a series of memorandum

 agreemeiits'relatide ro'this property. Contrary to the Organization's
 pdsitionth'at the period 1959''td'1965 is.,irrelevant,lthe Board finds it of
 great importance. It is clear that there had developed a practice never -

 4
 before disputed iatierdby the benefits set forth in tho memorandum agreements

              ~s : ~;, ,r ..

existed ih l'ieu of 'any conflicfhig provisions of ~Rule 1f.

 Moreover, the' updisputed facla in the record. are, `that'Claimants all lived in the metropolitan Nashville area. Therefore,, a claim based on a theory which compels compensation based on non-residence in,the Nashville

 area is not ripe for decision' no real claim ye,t exists.,

 AWARD
Claims denied.'

 Date:

 Neutral 1 M~ ember

 ' . ~ Zi
 Carrier Member

 rga zation"-Member