trailers, however, were actually moved by a rather circuitous route totalling 782 rail miles. In its third response on the property, Carrier also raised the contention that shortest route rail miles was the appropriate basis for computing the travel time.
In reviewing this matter, the Board has disregarded much of the material and argument contained in the Carrier's submission because it was not raised during the handling of the Claim by the parties on the property. When considering only the contentions properly raised on the property, the Claim distills down to a dispute over whether actual rail miles or shortest route rail miles should control the travel time computation.
Neither party cited prior precedent on the property to the Board. Rather, both parties premised their contentions on the words of the rule itself. As a result, the Claim is one of first impression.
The Organization's Claim would be well founded If the words, "... by the shortest route,..." were not contained in the second sentence of the rule. If they were absent, the rule would clearly call for a computation based on the actual miles the trailers were moved by rail. But those words are present. It is not logical to assume the parties included those words in the second sentence intending them to have no effect. Indeed, interpretations of agreement language that render some of the words to be meaningless or of no effect are not favored. Rather, the preferred interpretation is one that gives effect to all of the terms of a provision wherever such an interpretation can reasonably be construed. , ,_
On the record before us, we find the proper computational method was to use the shortest distance rail route to calculate travel time regardless of the actual mileage the trailers were moved. It is undisputed that using Carrier's own track as well as ICG trackage rights, the proper payment, using this shortest rail route, would have been slightly less than Claimants have already been paid.
Gerald E. Wallin
Ch ' man and Neutral Member