I'artire tEx I3ispxtfe: ( -and-




                      IMT,RC?I)UCT1DN

This Board is duly constituted by agreement of the parties dated I3ctxtnber 20> 1990 (the "PLB Agreement"), and as further provided is Section 3, Second of ft Railway Labor Act ("Act"). 45 Lt.S_C. Section iS:?. Se;.ond. The Hoard, after hearing and upon Mw'ietv 4.f the crtire rmord, Finds that tfst: ptrtics involved in this dispute are x Carrier and amptuyee representative ("Organization") within she meaning of the Act, as atttendcd.

                                                  Public: Law Board No. ;SiJf'sg Award No. 17

                                      Case No. 30 Carrier Fife No- CfJ 94-(13-i 1A13 Orgariixatiazt File No. T·5122


                            ~'1~iri~

    pct ()claber x. 1993. the claimant, conductor G_ I_ Roberts. -was assigned to the Conductor's Extra Board at CltcyntW e.WYanting. On this panit<ular date, (1,4 claiMalu WEIS called by the Carrier to protect x brakentan vacancy on the second Ft. C01ijus.. Colorado switch assigntnenE. There are four seniority districts: Cheyettnc, Trinidad, Deaver and ftiMs?ll.ins. It was agreed that conductor and brakatztaa vacancies on assignments at )~t. Collins atx: protected by the extrafwards at Denver, Colorado. However. oft October 2. 1993, the Carrier was unable lo locate a tested and available braleritatt axt tike cxtratxard at Denver or

    *an available brakeman on a regular assignment at Denver to protect the vacancy at Ft. Callin~. Aceersiing tee the Carrier, the ela.imfinE ss°as the first-out mid properly rested ernplayca :lt the nearest extratx0ard at Clra:ysttne, and tltettfat'a, iaaiuWtu WAS COUCCElymilcd to protect flit vacancy at fit. Collins,

    After completing his assignment at Ft. Collins, the t)alCrat7t was deadheaded try ChEyennc. Upon arriving its Cheyenne, the claimant submittGtl an "08 pe.tsalty t.itt5tsli[t," which claimed x basic day~Irenalty payment for being used by the Carrier off his assigtuxt district- This afaim and subsNuettt appeals by cite Organization were denied by the Carrier.

The Organization contends chat Article; V1II of the 14$4 Crew Consist Agreement;
 Article IB, Section 1 of the 1991 Crew Consist Agreement; arid Rules 23, 36 and 6$ cnpport
 -its argument that the claim should be sustained. 'fix Carrier contends that the rotes cited by

                              2

                                              Public l,.,tw Board No. <9s9 Award No. 17

                                  Case No, 30 Carrier File NO CTT 94-U3-I )AD Organization Filc No. T-3122


tEje Organization do not support the Urgatxixatian's Gtaim that the alalttutit is entitled to a basic day pertzlty payrnent. i4forcnver, the Carrier contends thus these ntlzs donut prohibit the

Carrier from czcrcising its prerogative to earl the cJ4jiMatlt to fi_1 a vacatu:y at la, Collin% Whea

the Comlttctc°rs Extra Board at Denver is exhausted, Furthermore, the t=artier clainix that kale &8 iAl implies an obligation upon rite Carrier to calf the Claimant for the vate8nn.^.Y at issue in this case.


    Article III, Section 1 of the 791 Crew Consist Agr3:rxtent provides, as follows:


        Guaranteed road or combination ro5c1°yard extra boards will protect alt extra matt service tuxds, t3ottt conductor and brakeman. Therefore, employees with conductor seniority darts uri11 tt assigned to tht3c boards based upon their brakentats's seniority, The Carrier alts_1 maintain a sufficient number of

        employees to permit reasonable lay off privilcgcs and to prow

        (lie struicr: including vacations and ether extended zsacaltcica.

        The Carrier will regulate the number of positions on. EItN

        gttaratticed extra boards rstubtistted pursuant to this Article in such a manner to ensure that there is a sufficient munaber of t<tnptaycos avai_al~1t: to pzntect all vacancies and extra service.


    Rule 25. entitled "First En First Out." provides, in relevant part, as follows:


        (Aa Gltaui gang crows sltatl lx run i`iVst in, first out, in xeSpW tivc SetviCO An ittelr respective (1lSt.Cia$, Extra marl to le handled it) the same manner, with ft: exception as to coal torts and runs carrying passengers.


        Crews for individual iraitimen called to deadhead will be called to a4 an duty at the stone time as the read crew. Rote 1(1 dccs oat apply,


                          3

                                    Pithlic Law Board No. 5969

                                    Award No. 17

                                    Case No. 30

                                    Carrier File No. C"!a t3rt-03-11A1i

                                    Organization FilcNo, T-51 22


Rule 36, entitled "VaCkirY:it',S,° provides, to rGltl'drlt parc "(A) tliolce of runs will be governed by seniority, as herein provided." Lastly, Rule fi$, entitled "Seniority and Reduet'seatt 0( F4TCGo provides, in relevant part:

          tlp) Y.3rdtrarn-fraimuen Will 4staI)Aish cantntan 5et1iO3~itx· rights, on the entire Colorado arid Sntuherr; Railway S~y-Ftern, at tine time of entering ft service. Where two or more entglayeeS enter the yc;rricc at the so me day and hrn3r, rhey will rank in accorx!atyCt with the time the application ix fled, which tune will be 1reCardad urt the applicatltitt.

In reaching its decision, the Board finds the following statement on gage 3 of the Carrier's Submission. particularly enligbtening.

 Call rules an the property. indcal, througboat the industry,
 rcyuire iliac when 8 source of sttpp_y which protects service for a
 particular area becomes exhausted, a properly rested and
 qualified eenplc7ycc from the rtearwl extra board point, on lhc
 finrne eraiaritv dictrict, is callad to fill the oaCazecy and is
 dnadlteaded home an tie-up. (Underlining supplied).
 The Board rinds that flit Cheyenne, Wyoming seniority district is separate anti distinct from
 the Ft. Collins seniority district. The canduetor'brakettaan extra boards at Cheyenne protect
 service from CheyetutC north to Ciutrnsey, Wyoming W xi train stn ice south rat Cheyenne Ls
 protected by the Ft. Collins seniority distxicE: Rule 25 provides that extra board employers
 will 6e utilized 65· the Carrier first in, first out on their respective districts. Based upon [he
 record, the Board concludes that the clairttRttt was used in an improper manner by the Carrier

        htlbliC Law litntrd iVa. 5969 Award No. 17 Case u0'. (1 Carrier File No . C'T3 <14 -03-31 AB

    flr&anixatimt !iii_e loo, 'f-5 _22


because be was called to service in the Ft. Collies seniority district, while assigned to as extra
 (~OarAi in the Cheycnnc seniority district,
 Additionally. the Board finds that the Carrier sfatawd Article III, Scc:cian 1 of the 1991
 Crew Consist A.grccment lrccacue it did not npaintain a sufficient number of ernpipytty, to permit reasonable !ay off Privileges and to protcxa service an the Ft. Collins seniority district at. the time this claim ars;,se, The fact that the incident at issue in this case took place nn a n'eekenai, when more layoffs allegedly occ,'ut. dots mt excuse the Carrier from Complying with Article III, SeCtiott 1 and Rule 25(A). Based upon the circumstances presented by this

 case, the Board concludes that the appropriate remedy to dozer futt:rc vialatirarxs of this nature

 bv tlts C.arcier is to sustain the slain;, Sm PLTi 2333, Award hits- 2 (Van Wart, Arb-y i 39it1;.

 The claim is sustained.

 Edward T.KoeRig. Carrier Iaietnhex

 al~ 1~e 4jvn',~- -
 Robert Rtpstine, F..znplo;ee h'fethher

 lpmt)tatt I. Rkitt, Neutral alemlw

 4

 This Award issued the day 8f Aex~;'e' , 3 999.