Claimant thus asserts that he is entitled to the claimed per diem allowance of $31.75 pursuant to Article 27.7 of the Agreement Rules. This contract language reads:
It is the position of the Carrier that Claimant is not entitled to the per diem allowance because he was not a member of a maintenance crew at the time in question. Further, it notes that as Claimant himself has stated, he worked ahead of and behind the production (surfacing) crew. Thus, the Carrier urges, Claimant was not performing production work with a production crew, but was rather assigned work that has been recognized to be traditional track maintenance work at a location where a production crew was performing production work.
While the Carrier argues that Claimant was not a member of a maintenance crew on the date claimed, there appears to be no question that Claimant, an I&R Foreman, worked along with several other members of a maintenance crew in the performance of crossing work at Attwell Road.
In the opinion of the Board, the contract language contained in Article 27.7, supra, "in conjunction with," should not be viewed as having intended that maintenance personnel must become part of a production crew, or be formally assigned to a crew, to be eligible for the per diem allowance, as the Carrier would imply. It seems to the Board that this terminology is meant to recognize that members of maintenance crews will be entitled to the per diem allowance if they perform work in coniunction with, or concurrent with, the work of a production crew. In other words, it need not involve the same work as that being performed by the production crew, but work necessary to completion of the work of the production crew on a particular task or project.
For the Board to sustain Carrier argument, the record would have to show that Claimant was at the crossing where the production crew was working by happenstance to perform previously scheduled maintenance work at that location.
However, since the record shows Claimant was specifically sent to the project location for the purpose of performing work necessary or critical to the initiation and completion of project work by a production crew, it must be concluded that on the date at issue Claimant was assigned to work in conjunction with the production crew.
Lastly, as concerns further Carrier argument that Claimant is not entitled to the per diem allowance because, as provided for in Article 27.7, supra, he started work at his headquarters point and was provided transportation to and from the work site. This is a clearly stated requirement of Article 27.7, and may not be read to have intended that compliance is reason for the nonpayment of a per diem allowance. Moreover, that Carrier complied with this requirement supports the finding that Claimant was transported from and back to his headquarters point in pursuance of Article 27.7 for the specific purpose of performing work at the crossing in conjunction with the production crew.