PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

          Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees


                          and


          Consolidated Rail Corporation


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

      1. The Agreement was violated when the Carrier failed and

      refused to properly compensate the affected machine operator

      employes assigned to Rail Gangs 230, 231 and 320 for work

      performed (handling and carrying tools) prior to and after

      their regularly assigned work period beginning June 24, 1996

      and on a continuing daily basis thereafter (System Docket

      MW-5163).


      2. As a consequence of the violation referred to in

      Part (1) above, the Carrier shall "... make a

      correction to its practices to allow for the above

      payments. Additionally, until such time violation is

      stopped, the Carrier must be responsible to make

      adjustments for each Claimant who has not been paid in

      accordance with the Agreement."


FINDINGS:

 This Board, upon the whole record and all of the evidence, finds and holds as follows:

 1. That the Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute are, respectively, Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended,; and

      2. That the Board has jurisdiction over this dispute.


OPINION OF THE BOARD:

 Rule 23 (Waiting or Traveling by Direction of Company), provides, in pertinent part, that:

                            1

                                          s aA 101 6 Awd 188


      (c) Employees traveling on a motor car, trailer or

      highway vehicle, who are required to operate, supervise

      (Foreman), flag or move the car or trailer to or from

      the track, or handle tools to and from such vehicles,

      shall be paid for time riding as time worked.


Significant precedent exists by prior members of Special Board of Adjustment No. 1016 on the present issue. The Board found, in relevant part, that:

      By providing secure storage for tools at the worksite, the Carrier is not dictating where the employees sore their tools. It merely provides each employee an option. Each employee is completely free to store his tools at the worksite or carry them back and forth each day. By having the option, however, the employee is not required to transport them each day. Accordingly, pay under Rule 23(c) is not required. It follows, therefore, that Carrier is not in violation of the Agreement by refusing payment.


(Award Nos. 107, 109, 110, 112, 126, 128, and 129 at 6 (June 7, 2000) (Wallin, Chairman and Neutral Member).)

 A careful review of the record in the present case indicates that the facts are materially identical in all relevant ways to the facts that the earlier Special Board of Adjustment had carefully considered. Under these circumstances no additional, different, or new information warrants disturbing the existing precedent.

 AWARD:
The Claim is denied.

 Robert L. Douglas
 Chairman and Neutral Member
 2
 R. D. Robinson D. L. Ker
 Em loyee Member Carrier Member

 Dated:

                          2