UNION CASE NO. P-349-1-631

                                COMPANY CASE NO. 9304029


P;RTI:.:S TO TEE DISP=M:

 UNION PACIFIC =R CO
 (WESTERN REG=O?i )
 - and - EROTE ERH-COD 0= LOCOMOTIVE ENG=NE"S RS
S TAmt'K'^TT OR C- A-.3: C_'= Engineer F -_~,
 _ -~ - G _ __^. G.r _ n e.____ S. C. _ l for 199
      ma°_3, t--'.=S1 _~ al iii Ca=ed August 26, 1993, account

      performed work and t_~e-'_ call was changed to deaadhead.


OPINICN OF BOA-RD: En c_ :eer S. C. Farm ev (Claimant) was
 working an interdivisional =cc! freight job between Salt Lake
 CiCv, and Milford, Utah. On August 26, 1993 Claimant was called
 to work the F_K-_''R-21 on ducv at 0700. After r=_ceiving his paper
 work and perfor=ming an air test on that train, Claimant was
 instructed by Yard Master Ccspton at 1020 to trade trains from
 the HK-ZR-24 to the CHLAZ-24. Claimant picked up the new paper
 work and perfcr:ned an air test on that train, in anticipation of
 working from Salt Lake Citv to Milford. After being on duty for
 some five hour= and 45 minutes but not yet departing the
 te^Slinal, however, C1 aim2=1t:VaS told at 1245 that h15 Call was
 changed to from se=vice to deadhead. Eventually, he did deadhead
 by Armadillo from Salt Lake Citv to Milford.
 - = S-'p n150 claiming five (5) hour= and ----=°_n (=5) minutes for initial terminal delay aid two hundred and oe'ien (207) .uil=S _.':n Salt lake Citv tG 'Ni1f~rd.
                          AWARD NO. 69

                          NMB CASE N0. 69

                          UNION CASE N0. P-349-1-631

                          COMPANY CASE N0. 9304029

                          2


Carrier's time keeping department paid him a separate and apart
 deadhead or eight hours (3'00) as well as and three (3) hours and
 fifteen (IS) minutes "_-_tlal terminal tjmell. The remainder of
 the time slip was denied ad -forms the basis for this claim. It
 is noted that the Statee"t of Claim seeks 100 miles -for perforn, " pr..._ y
        ir_g work" to Carrier chancing the call from service

to dead-Read. Carrier -da-vet any objection to the changing of the
 claim because hcth -__=-=5 seek a defi-itive determination of
 what comze-^-sat-on, _= c -:i , -s due to Claimant in these
 circumstances.
 This is another __. a series of cases which this Board has decided regarding application of 1980' National Agreement Article VI-Deadhead-=g, Sid°_ _ct_er =?, Questions and AIiswers, Issue No. 10 of the IDC, the Hcpki =s%Mcgather correspondence of April 1990, and related arbitration decisions in various circumstances. See PLB 4450, Awards 19, 20, 32 and 36. None of these decisions presents the identical facts or squarely raises the specific question presented i_^_ ___is matter; although Award No. 36 is close to the mark and the f::-damental rationale of those decisions with respect to the deadhead saga=ate and apart applies equally in the present case. Moreover, the wording and logic of Article VI, Section 6 a-a c_-mpat=.^._= w=tin a sustaini_na deciclon 4n t^=S case.
 ConcerninC the S-t__f=C issue presented on this rec-rd, tile not insubstantial se= __ o_rformed pr..,_ to the Chance of his

 Call tc `J,., - _ - :n 2 deadhead S ua-~1. u^,:.._ Rule 2-_.
                            AWARD N0. 69

                            NMB CASE NO. 69

                            UNION CASE NO. P-349-1-631

                            COMPANY CASE NO. 9304029

                            3


          Rule 2a. Basic Gay. In all road service, other than passenger, 100 miles or less, (Straightaway or turnaround ) shall constitute a dav's work; miles in excess of 100 will be paid for at the mileage rates provided according to class of locomotive or other power used. (Emphasis added)

Carrier's defense that =_=ticle VIII, Section 3-Incidental Work, Paragraph (f) over_des Rule 2.3 and legitimizes the denial of compensation for the wcr:G Claimant performed before his call 1 was changed to deadheadi=c is m?splaced in the facts of this casa. Nor does this case _=vclve compliance by Carrier with FIFO rules, as did PL3 2179-2 (?.rbitrator P. J. Moor°_). It is not necessary to e-:c=ress or imply any opinion at this time concern'_ng whether that PL3 2179-2 is reconcilable with the Article VI, Section 2 decision-s of this ?card. We find simply that the claim for 100 miles under Rule 24 rn7ast be sustained in the circumstances of t=a present r=ecord. (The Prties jointly stipulated that the init-'al Terminal Delav would be offset against any monetary award, if the Organization prevails on its r=-rised claim) .
                            AWARD N0. 69

                            NMB CASE NO- 69

                            UNION CASE NO. P-349-1-631

                            COMPANY CASE NO. 9301029


                      4


                      AWARD


1) Claim sustained.

 2) Carrier shall imcl°ment this Award within thirty

 (30) days of its execution by a ma-crity of the Board.

                  Dana Edward Eischen, Chin


            Dated at ithaca. New York on April 12, 1996


        . a .~-~...-..

Qil

 Union Member Company Member