CASE NO. 1 Carrier File: 1383319 Organization File: 2RM-9494T CNW PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division -
Union Pacific Railroad Company
(former Chicago & North Western Transportation Company)
The Board, upon the whole record and on the evidence, finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended; that this Board is duly constituted by agreement of the parties; that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute, and that the parties were given due notice of the hearing.
The instant Claim is a lead case that is intended to govern other similar claims being held in abeyance. The Claim embodies three different scenarios with an identical fact pattern. Although the pattern is somewhat complex, the essential facts of its makeup are not in dispute.
At all times relevant to the Claim, the Claimants worked on Mobile Gang 2984 in the State of Iowa. The gang worked four ten-hour days with regular hours from 0700 to 1730 Monday through Thursday. The mobility of the gang caused it to live away from home in various lodging facilities such as camp cars, highway trailers, hotels and motels. As such, the gang members are entitled to meal, travel, and lodging allowances in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. Public Law Board No. 6781 Award No. 1
The first scenario occurred on Tuesday, September 9, 2003. The Claimants began their workday at the designated assembly point at Estherville, Iowa. They were instructed by their supervisor to travel to Mason City, Iowa, some 111 miles away, where they would work that day and report for their next day's work on Wednesday, September 10`". Claimants were not returned to their Estherville assembly point but instead were instructed to end their workday on September 9' at the new assembly point of Mason City. The travel to Mason City was accomplished in Carrier provided vehicles and occurred during the gang's regularly scheduled working hours. Claimants were not provided transportation back to the Estherville assembly point to retrieve their personal vehicles that were parked there nor were they allowed travel time or mileage to drive their cars to the new Mason City assembly point. Instead, it appears from the on-property record, that Claimants were not returned to the Estherville assembly point to retrieve their cars until the end of their work week. Thus, on this record, the Claimants reported for work on Tuesday, September 9, 2003 at Estherville, Iowa and were not returned to that point until the end of their workday on Thursday, September 11th.
As a result of this first scenario, Claimants contend they were entitled to remain under pay, beyond regular hours and at the overtime rate, until they were returned to the Estherville assembly point because Rule 25 provides that their work time starts and stops at the designated assembly point for the day. Given the 111 mile distance, they contend it would have taken two hours to travel back to the Estherville assembly point from Mason City. Once back at the Estherville assembly point, their work time for the day would stop. However, per Rule 47 C.1., they were entitled to another two hours of pay at straight time rates for the time spent traveling from the Estherville work point to the new Mason City work point because it occurred outside of regularly assigned hours. In addition, per Rule 47 C.2., they claim mileage for driving their cars the 111-mile distance from Estherville back to Mason City because the Carrier did not provide transportation to the new work point.
The second scenario occurred on Monday, September 29, 2003. Claimants reported to work at Mason City and were told to travel to Ft. Dodge, Iowa and finish their day's work there. They were told that Ft. Dodge would be the new assembly point for Tuesday, September 30'. They were not returned to the Mason City assembly point but ended their work day at Ft. Dodge. Once again, the travel from Mason City to Ft. Dodge on September 29' occurred during regular assigned hours in Carrier vehicles. The Carrier provided the gang transportation back to their cars at Mason City during regular assigned hours at the end of the work week on October 2, 2003. The distance between Mason City and Ft. Dodge is 105 miles and takes two hours of travel time.
Under this second scenario, like the first scenario, the Claimants contend they are again entitled to two hours travel time back to the Mason City assembly point on Monday, September 29'. Because their work time did not end for the day per Rule 25 until they were returned to that assembly point, the travel time calls for the overtime rate. Once back at the Mason City assembly point, their work time stopped for the day, but they are entitled to two hours travel time and mileage to drive their cars from Mason City to Ft. Dodge.
The third scenario occurred on Thursday, October 2, 2003. The Claimants reported for work at the Ft. Dodge assembly point. They were instructed to travel to Des Moines, Iowa and end their workday there and report for work again at Des Moines on Monday, October 6, 2003. They were not returned to the Ft. Dodge assembly point at the end of the day. Instead, it appears from the
Public Law Board No. 6781 Award No. 1
Given the italicized and underscored text of Rule 25 B and the Guidelines for interpreting the rule, several important observations are readily apparent: First, although the daily assembly point for mobile gangs can be changed from time to time, there can be only one assembly point per work day, which is where the employees start and end their time. The requirement of a single assembly point per work day is amply demonstrated by the repetitive and consistent use of the singular form of the multiple references to it. For example, the text is replete with references such as "a location," "the designated location," and "the assembly point." Secondly, it follows from the first observation that employees' work time must start and end at this same singular assembly point each day. The corollary to this observation is that the employees' work time does not end for a given work day until they are returned to this singular assembly point. Third, and finally, it is clear that the Carrier may change the designated assembly point from time to time but only in-between and not within work days. To do so, however, the Carrier must give notice of the change to the employees on the gang before the end of the previous work day for the change to be effective for the next work day.
Our review of the on-property record does not reveal any sufficient evidence of a past practice that would operate to undercut the foregoing observations.
the three scenarios, the Carrier failed to properly change the designated assembly point for the days in question. For example, in the first scenario, the employees reported to Estherville on September 9, 2003, which was the assembly point for that day. The supervisor directed the gang to move to Mason City and end their day there. This violated Rule 25 B in two respects: First, the supervisor attempted to change the assembly point within the same day. Second, the supervisor failed to provide notice of the change by the end of the previous work day.
Because the employees were not returned to Estherville on September 9' to end their work day, technically the employees' time continued to accrue without end. Nonetheless, the Organization has graciously limited its Claim to the amount of time and mileage that would have accrued had they commenced return travel to Estherville right after the end of their regularly assigned hours for that day. Because that two hours of time traveling back to Estherville occurred outside of regular hours, it follows that the time would be paid at overtime rates per Rule 30. Once back at Estherville, where their work time was stopped from further accrual, the employees were then assumed to have driven their personal vehicles to Mason City outside of regular hours. Thus, per Rule 47 C.1., the employees were entitled to the travel time at straight time pay rates for the two-hour drive to Mason City. Plus, per Rule 47 C.2., because the Carrier did not provide the transportation for that afterhours move, the employees were also entitled to the applicable mileage allowance. The same travel pay and mileage allowance analysis pertains to the second and third scenarios.