Case No. 660


                  PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 5383


BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS )

 VS. j Parties to Dispute
 1
 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY )

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
      Claim of Engineer C. F. Penge, Jr. for an additional $28.00 Instructor Pay for each date that Claimant was assigned L. C. Cain, III, as a student engineer, November 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and December 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15, 1997, File 1101413 and 1101414. Also claims of Engineer P. R. Tagatz for an additional $28.00 Instructor pay for each date that Claimant was assigned D. E. Paulcheck as a student engineer June 30, 1997; July 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20, 222, 23, 27, and 29, 1997 and August 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, 1997, Files 1080709, 1080710, 1080711, 1080712.


                        FINDINGS

Upon the whole record and all the evidence, the Board finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that the
 ~L.3 ~1a. 5383
 E~w D ht o . CD CO O

    Board is duly constituted by agreement and has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter.

    L. C. Cain III and D. E. Paulcheck were absent for an extended period and during this time lost their certification or license as locomotive engineer under FRA regulations. Upon return to service each was required to work with a certified engineer to regain the status they previously held.

    The claims in this case are from the engineers with whom Cain and Paulcheck worked during the recertification process. Claimants C. F. Penge, Jr. and P. R. Tagatz contend they were working as "Instructor Engineers" and were entitled to $28.00 each day under an agreement reading in part:


            "The Carrier may utilize locomotive engineers to provide on-the-job training to student engineers. Such training will be delivered by locomotive engineers designated as `Instructor Engineers' during their working trips, subject to the following: xxxxxxxxxxxx Compensation


            1. Instructor engineers will receive

                one of the following allowances,

                in addition to all other earnings,

~c..c3 No · 53f33

 ~w D U D · (o (~O

                  for each tour of dutv with a student engineer or with an engineer taking a recertification trip required by the FRA to maintain his or her locomotive engineer's license:


                  Yard Service: $14.00 Road Service: (including local and road switcher): $28.00


                  Note: The foregoing allowances are `frozen' (i.e. not subject to future wage increases).


                  2. The presence of a student engineer will not affect the Instructor Engineer's rate of pay when operating without a fireman.


                          xxxxxxxxxxxx


                      Special Qualifications


                          xxxxxxxxxxxx


                  Q-1: If the need arises for a student engineer or an engineer recertifying to ride and an instructor is not available may another engineer be used?


              A-1: Yes.


                  Q-2: What will the non-instructor engineer be paid?

pL_g WD .53E33

 P~ c,a p ND . G 6 b

              A-2: The same as an instructor engineer under the compensation provisions of this agreement. xxxxxxxxxxxx"

      The Employees state that Cain and Paulcheck were

working with Student Engineer licenses, issued by Carrier
 supervision, during the period in question. As such,
 Claimants were entitled to the instructor allowance for each
 of the tours of duty until Cain and Paulcheck were again
 certified as Locomotive Engineers. According to the Employees,
 the agreement quoted above is clear. A previous settlement,
 rejected by the Carrier, is offered in support of this
 contention.
 The Carrier states that the Instructor Agreement applies to engineers used to provide on-the-job training to student engineers under the National Training Agreement and FRA regulations. Claimants were not "Instructor Engineers", according to the Carrier.
 The Instructor Engineer Agreement does not apply to promoted engineers taking familiarization trips required by FRA mandating continuing recertification or any other

                          -q-

P~ N~ 538 3

 familiarization trips, according to the Carrier. It is the position of the Carrier that it is the intent of the Instructor Agreement that the allowance applies only to those instructing previously untrained persons. Cain and Paulcheck did not fit this description.
 It is the decision of this Board that the claims should be allowed. We do not find that one who has been promoted, but lost certification due to a long absence, is not a "student" when returning to service. Cain and Paulcheck were student engineers by definition during the periods in question as they were operating with student licenses. The instructor Agreement does not specify that the allowance applies only to those operating with previously untrained persons.
 This decision is applicable only to the factural situation involved here and is not intended to address any question with regard to an engineer operating with another certified engineer making a review trip or trips.

                        AVEUD


    Claims are allowed.


                          -5-

~ ~l3 ~o . 5333 ADD No. Co(~o

                          ORDER

The Carrier is ordered to make this Award effective within thirty (30) days from the date shown below.

 43.. ~.4,.,.~,`~c.,..,,
EmPtoYee Member C
 ier Member

                          -v


                  Chairman and Neu;E al Member


Dated: ~~ -/L/- (r0