IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION )
 )
 Between )
 CARRIERS REPRESENTED BY THE )
 NATIONAL RAILWAY LABOR CONFERENCE )
 AND THE SOUTHEASTERN, EASTERN AND )
 WESTERN CARRIERS' CONFERENCE ) INTERPRETATIONS
 COMMITTEES ) NUMBERED
 12 THROUGH 58
 and )
 EMPLOYEES' NATIONAL CONFERENCE )
 COMMITTEE , FIVE COOPERATING RAILWAY )
 LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
 )
 (NATIONAL I~EDIATION BOARD
 CASE N0. A-7948)


INTERPRETATION N0. 12 (Question No. 1; BRS and UP)





2 The Memorandum of Board Conference issued by the full Board on September 30, 1967, included the following: "1. It was decided by the Board that the provisions of Section I shall not apply to employees where the men report for duty at a fixed point, which remains the same point throughout the year." The Carrier seems to contend that these employes are now subject to Section II of the Award rather than Section I.

 With regard to Section II employees the following language
 from the "Opinion of the Neutral Members" is pertinent:
 "Section II of the award deals primarily with problems
 arising out of relief service, although not limited
 thereto. Within the area of relief assignments three
 general categories are involved and these are: (1)
 regular assigned employees diverted from their regular
 assignment to perform relief service; (2) regular assigned
 relief employees who provide relief on a scheduled basis
 to fill in on the rest days of regular employees; and
 (3) extra employees who provide relief on an irregular
 unscheduled basis as the needs of the service may require."

 An employee cannot be transferred from coverage of Section I into Section II merely by the discontinuance of camp cars and or the designation of a headquarters point.

 In applying the foregoing principles and guidelines to the specific question at issue here, it is clear that the employees

INTERPRETATION N0. 13 (Question No. 2; BRS and UP)
 QUESTION: Carrier's practice over a period of many years has been to pro
 vide camp cars for gangs performing work over an entire senior
 ity district or the entire railroad. Employes assigned to such
 gang are recruited from the entire seniority district or the
 entire railroad and work away from their homes while assigned to
 the gang.
 May carrier discontinue providing camp cars, establish a fixed
 location as headquarters for the gang, changing the headquarters
 location as work progresses over such seniority district or the
 entire railroad and escape payment under I-A-3?

 ANSWER: This question is answered by Interpretation No. 12.

 INTERPRETATION N0. 14 (Question No. 3; BRS and UP)


ANSWER: This question is answered by Interpretation No. 12

 INTERPRETATION N0. 15 (Question No. 4; BRS and UP)
 QUESTION: Carrier establishes a position at a fixed location in connection
 with rail laying programs or catching up work on a maintainer's
 territory. The nature of the work being of short duration, it
 would not be feasible or practical to move his home to such
 location and the successful applicant lives away from his home
 while on such assignment.
 May carrier avoid payment of lodging and meal allowance under
 the Award?

 ANMIER: This question is answered by Interpretation No. 12.

 INTERPRETATION N0. 16 (Question No. 5: BRS and UP)
 QUESTION: Carrier establishes a system gang at a fixed location in a
 terminal area or classification yard without camp cars. Employes
 are recruited from all over the railroad system with their homes
 at various points, none of them maintains his home in the vicinity
 of the terminal or classification yard.
 Inasmuch as the employes are required to live away from their
 homes throughout their work week, may Carrier escape provisions
 of I-A-3, B-3 and B-4?
        ANSWER: Yes. Inasmuch as these men report for duty at a fixed point which remains the same throughout the year; see Interpretation No. 8.


        INTERPRETATION N0. 17 (Question No. o; BRS and UP)

QUESTION: Employes are working in a gang at point "A". The work point is
 changed from "A" to "B" outside of work hours or on a rest day or
 holiday while employes are not actually at work. Employes are not
 required by the carrier to ride in the camp cars and elect to
 travel from "A" to "B" in their own automobiles.
 May carrier avoid payment of travel time from "A" to "B" under
 I-C-1?

 ANSETER: No. This question is answered by Interpretation No. 9.

        INTERPRETATION N0. 18 (Question No. 7; BRS and UP)

        QUESTION: May Carrier avoid payment of travel time from "A" to "B" because the employee traveled from "A" to "C" to "B" rather than going straight to "B" before going home to "C"? In traveling from one work point to another outisde of regularly assigned hours or on a rest day or holiday, is waiting time to be included in "time spent?" This question is in two parts. The answer to part one is: See Interpretation No. 9. Part two is answered by Interpretation No. 11.


        INTERPRETATION N0. 19 (Question No. 8; BRS and C2iStPE.P)

        QUESTION: Is Carrier permitted to apply the Award in such a manner so as to reduce benefits employees received under existing rules and practices before; i.e., in view of the illustration cited below with respect to a Special Signal Maintainer position, was Carrier permitted under the Award to allow the incumbent of that position


No.
                        5

        only $3.00 a day for his meals even though he previously was reimbursed the full cost of meals taken or. work days?

        ANSWER: No. The Organization had the right to preserve the pre-existing full cost of meals allowance and under the particular facts presented in this case the option as exercised should be so interpreted.


INTERPRETATION N0. 20 (Question No. 9; BRS and CMBtP&P)
        QUESTION: To what meal allowance were the gang men entitled under the circumstances cited above? (*) - i .e., were they entitled to full meal expense for those days on which the kitchen facilities were not available for every meal? If not, to what were they entitled?

        The circumstances cited are as follows: "An emergency situation arose which required the men to work overtime away from their trailers. They were required to leave the trailers after breakfast and were working on the emergency long enough to make it necessary that they purchase their noon and evening meals away from their trailers."

        ANSI, IER: Under the circumstances cited, the employees were entitled to the $3.00 allowance under Section I-B-3.


INTERPRETATION N0. 21 (Question No. 10; BRS and IC)
        QUESTION: To what meal allowance are the gang employees entitled under the circumstances cited above: (*) i.e., are they entitled to (1) $2.00 per day, (2) $3.00 per day, (3) $2.00 per day plus the actual cost of the noon meal taken away from the camp cars, kitchen facilities were not available to the men for that meal,

                        7

        or (4) actual expenses for all meals taken during a day in which the kitchen facilities were not available to the men each and every meal throughcut the day? If these men are entitled to none of the above, to what are they entitled?

        (*) Circumstances cited are as follows: The employees were living in camp cars and were receiving a meal allowance of $2.00 per day under Section I-B-2. Under normal circumstances they returned to the camp cars for each meal. 0n the date in question they were working so far away from the camp cars that it was impractical for them to return for the noon meal.

        ANSWER: Under the facts stated it is not clear whether the employees were given advance notice of the fact that they would be unable to return to the camp car for the noon meal. If the employees were notified prior to departure from the camp cars that it would be impossible for them to return for the noon meal then they should be prepared to carry with them a lunch and would be entitled to no additional payment other than the normal payment already being made under Section I-B-2. If on the other hand the employees were not notified in advance of the fact that they would be unable to return to the camp cars for the noon meal, then as a total meal allowance for the date in question they would be entitled to the $3.00 allowance under Section I-B-3.


INTERPRETATION N0. 22 (Question No. 11; BRS and Southern)
        QUESTION: Does a vacation constitute a voluntary absence within the meaning and intent of sub-paragraph B-4 of Section I; i.e., if a gang man receives the $1.00 daily meal allowance may Carrier make any

                        8

        deduction because of a vacation? For example, an hourly rated gang man whose normal work week is Monday through Friday begins a ten day vacation on Monday, March 4, 1968, with the actual

        vacation days being March 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15. He qualified for and received the $1.00 daily meal allowance for March 1 and March 18, the work days immediately preceding and following his vacation period. For which days was he entitled to the $1.00 daily meal allowance, if any, March 2 to March 17, both dates inclusive? Please explain.


ANSLIER: In this case the employee was on vacation from March 4 through
        March 17, 1968. He worked on Friday, March 1, 1968, the last work day preceding vacation and on Monday, March 18, 1968, the first day after vacation period. Therefore, he qualified for meal allowance on rest days, March 2 and 3, 1968, but for no other days during vacation period.


INTERPRETATION N0. 23 (Question No. 12; BRS and C&S)
        QUESTION: Was it proper for the General Chairman to amend his initial option in view of the fact he did so before the February 1, 1968, deadline? If not, please explain what language in the award prohibits an Organization from amending its exercise of option within the prescribed time limits.


ANSWER: The question is moot. Carrier has accepted amended option.

 INTERPRETATION N0. 24 (Question No. 13; BRS and CB&A)
        QUESTION: Are employees away from home all week but at their headquarters entitled to the lodging and meal benefits of sub-sections A and B of Section I?

                        9

        ANSWER: This question relates to a single gang with a fixed headquarters to which the men report for duty throughout the year and as such was answered by Interpretation No. 8, rendered by this Board on January 12, 1968 and Paragraph No. 1 of Memorandum of Board Conference, September 30, 1967.


=RPRETATION N0. 25 (Question No. 14; BRS and CB&Q)
        QUESTION: If Carrier assigns a headquarters for an employee and he does not live at the headquarters point, will that employee be entitled to any or all of the benefits of Section I, and then if he is required by Carrier to be away from headquarters would he be entitled to fell expenses while away from headquarters in accordance with agreement, rules and practices in existence when the Award was issued?

ANSITER: This question is a two part question.
 The answer to the first part of the question is: No. The
 situation is the same as that presented in Interpretation No. 8.
 In connection with the second part of the question the Carrier
 advises that these employees are paid actual expenses under
 existing rules when sent away from headquarters.

 INTERPRETATION N0. 26 (Question No. 15; BRS and CB&Q)
        QUESTION: When an employee was being reimbursed for actual meal and lodging expenses under existing rules and practices prior to the Award, may Carrier reduce the employee's expenses to the $3.00 daily meal allowance and the :;x+.00 daily lodging allowance when he is assigned to a camp car headquarters but temporarily required to be away from headquarters?

                        10

        ANSIIER: The question is moot. The Board is advised that there is no further dispute on the property.


INTERPRETATION N0. 27 (Question No. 16; BRS and G17d)
        QUESTION: When employees are in a type of service covered by Section I of the Award, and Carrier fails and/or refuses to properly maintain the lodging facilities by furnishing the beds, bedding, etc., listed in sub-paragraph A-1, and refuses to keep them clean in accordance with sub-paragraph A-2, what course of action should the employees follow until Carrier does comply by furnishing and properly maintaining what is required?

        ANSITER: The Carrier is bound by the provisions of the Award and assuming that it has failed to comply with the provisions of the Award, the remedy of the employees is exactly the same as it would be if the Carrier violated any provision of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the parties: i.e., a claim may be filed and processed under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act.


INTERPRETATION N0. 28 (Question No. 17; BRS and C2.tStP&P)
        QUESTION: ~,1hen existing rules provide for actual expenses away from headquarters, could Carrier properly change an employee's headquarters from camp cars or trailers to a specific headquarters without camp cars or trailers, and thereafter only apply the meal and lodging allowances of Section I for those days and/or nights the employee is away from the new headquarters, and then pay meal or lodging allowance for those days the employee leaves from his headquarters point and returns thereto the same day?

                        11

ANSWER: These employees are not in a type of service contemplated within
 the coverage of Section I.
 The answer to the first part of the question submitted by the
 Organization is "Yes," but the answer to the second part of the
 question is--the employes are subject to Section II of the Award
 and if an existing rule provides for actual expenses while away
 from headquarters and Employes opted to retain such existing
 rule, then actual expenses would apply under such rule for any
 day when away from headquarters point.

 INTERPRETATION N0. 29 (Question No. 18; BRS and SP (Pacific Lines))
        QUESTION: Play Carrier pay only the ;3.00 daily meal allowance instead of the actual cost of meals, under cirumstances that previously entitled the employees to reimbursement for the actual cost of meals? If not, please explain.


ANSWER: The question has been withdrawn.

 INTERPRETATION N0. 30 (Question No. 19; BRS and SP (Pacific Lines))
        QUESTION: Will Arbitration Board No. 298 render a final decision on claims of this nature, or will it be necessary for the Organization to handle a monetary claim by initiating it at a lower level than the carrier official who rendered the decision quoted above, and then appealing that claim to the National Railroad Adjustment Board or some other tribunal under the Railway Labor Act. In other words, will this Board render a final decision, or merely issue an interpretation?


ANSWER: The question has been withdrawn.
                        12


INTERPRETATION N0. 31 Question P1o. 20; BRS and SP (Pacific Lines))
        QUESTION: When an employee is away from his home station for the noon meal and entitled to be reimbursed for the cost thereof under provisions of the schedule agreement that have been in existence for years, does the Award of Arbitration Board No. 298 give the Carrier any right to refuse to reimburse the employee for the actual cost of such a meal? If so, please explain.

        ANSWER: This question involves employees stationed in camp cars or trailers. Under these circumstances Interpretation No. 21 is applicable.


INTERPRETATION N0. 32 (Question No. 21; BRS and Southern)
        QUESTION: May the Organization accept or reject any sub-paragraph of a Section of the Award; i.e., was it proper for the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen to accept paragraphs 1, 3, and 4 of Section I-B and not accept paragraph 2?

        ANS47ER: The Organization is not permitted to take only certain paragraphs of Section I-B, and reject others. The facts submitted in this case, however, establish that a pre-existing rule on this property required the Carrier to furnish a cook, and if the employees opt to accept Section I-B of the Award it is not permissible for the Carrier to discontinue furnishing a cook.


        INTERPRETATION N0. 33 (Question No. 22; BRS and A;:rP, WRofA~ & GA.)

        QUESTION: Can Carriers escape the responsibility of laundering bed linen, towels, etc., when the Brotherhood accepted I-A-1 and I-A-2?


ANSWER: No.
                        13


INTERPRETATION N0. 34 (Question No. 23; BRS and L8:N)
        QUESTION: May Carrier exclude monthly-rated employees from the travel time and expense provisions of sub-paragraph C-1 and C-2 of Section I?

        ANSWER: The monthly rated employees of the class and craft involved on this property are subject to a rule which provides that the overtime is paid after 211-2/3 hours. Travel time applies toward the 211-2/3 hours. Such monthly rated employees are not excluded from the travel time and expense provisions of the Award. Travel time allowances for time consumed traveling and waiting en route would not begin to apply until after expiration of the 211-2/3 hours comprehended in this monthly rate.


INTERPRETATION N0. 35 (Question No. 24; BRS and ASS WRofA, GA)
        QUESTION: Can Carrier require employees to ride in the back of a company truck, with tools and equipment, from one work point to another and escape reimbursement to employees for the use of other forms of public transportation, or private automobile?

ANSWER: Section I-C-2 of the Award obviously contemplates the furnishing
 of reasonable and suitable transportation by the railroad company.
 Disputes such as that presented in this question involve factual
 findings as to what constitutes reasonable and suitable trans
 portation, and should be handled in the same fashion as other
 grievances under the Collective Bargaining Agreement and under
 the Railway Labor Act.
                        14


INTERPRETATION N0. 36 (Question No. 25; BRS and MOP)
        QUESTION: Are Section I employees entitled to the :")3.00 daily meal allowance under sub-paragraph B-3 of Section I when Carrier intends to place them in the :;>2.00 daily allowance category of subparagraph B-2 of Section I, but does not provide sufficient cooking and dining facilities to accommodate all the men assigned to that unit?

        AN8;1ER: Section I-B-2 obviously contemplates that the railroad company must provide suitable and sufficient cooking and eating facilities. On this particular property it also appears that there is a local rule (Rule 808) setting forth more specific requirements in this connection. The question as presented involves a factual dispute which should be processed under the usual grievance procedures of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and under the Railway Labor Act.


INTERPRETATION N0. 37 (Question No. 26; BRS and KCS)
        QUESTION: When the lodging facilities are not equipped in accordance with sub-paragraph A-1 of Section I, and/or are not adequate for the purpose and maintained in accordance with suo-paragraph A-2 of Section I, are the employees involved entitled to the .$4.00 daily allowance under sub-paragraph A-3 of Section I?

        ANSS?ER: Section I-AQ2 provides that lodging facilities furnished by the railroad company shall be adequate for the purpose, and maintained in a clean, healthful and sanitary condition. The question presented involves a factual dispute as to compliance with that provision and must be handled as a grievance under the normal

                        15

        procedures of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and under the Railway Labor Act.


INTERPRETATION N0. 38 (Question No. 27; BRS and UP)
        QUESTION: When Carrier established a signal gang with a headquarters point but did not furnish camp cars or other lodging or dining facilities, and abolished the gang after si:: weeks, were the employes assigned to that gang entitled to the meals and lodging provisions of Article I of the Award?


ANSWER: This question is answered by Interpretation No. 12.

 INTERPRETATION N0. 39 (Questions Nos. 28, 29, 30; BRAC and AT&Sr)
 QUESTION: 1. Does the Award of Arbitration Board No. 298 contemplate the
 application of an Attending Court Rule when an employee is
 required to be away from home station to attend court or
 coroner's inquest at the request of the Company?
 2. Are the travel time allowances and computations provided
 in Section II-D applicable where an employee is required to be
 away from home station to attend court or coroner's inquest
 at the request of the Companyr9
 3. If the Organization elects to retain the "actual expense"
 provisions of Rule 35 - Attending Court, can we accept Section
 II-D of the Award of Arbitration Board No. 293?
        ANSWER: In the evidence presented to the Board it was not indicated that attendance at court or coroner's inquest at the request of the company was a problem embraced within the controversy submitted. Apparently the evidence was not addressed to such matters because many agreements cover the subject sufficiently satisfactorily

        15 so that no party saw fit to make an issue on this point. We conclude that where there is a negotiated rule on the subject, as there is in the case covered by these three questions, the Award does not supplant the negotiated rule. We do not decide what would be the answer under other circunvstances.


INTERPRETATION N0. 40 (Questions Nos. 31, 32, 33; D&IE and CRI&P)
 QUESTION: Is it the intent and purpose of Section II, paragraph D, of the
 Award:
 1. That a Carrier may require regularly assigned employees
 (that is, those not in relief, extra, or temporary service) to
 be transported on their own time without pay between their
 designated assembling point and the site of work each day, in
 the performance of their regularly assigned daily duties, for as
 much as one hour each way, thus allowing them only eight hours
 pay at the straight-time rate for a tour of duty covering as
 nnzch as ten hours?
 2. To disturb the long standing application of the working
 agreement that the time of such regularly assigned employees
 begins and ends each day at designated asse:abling points?
 3/ To contemplate the establishment of a new assembling point
 each work day for such regularly assigned employees for the
 purpose of avoiding the payment of time spent in being trans
 ported between the designated assembling point and the site on
 the work territory at which work is performed:
        ANSZIER: To the extent that this dispute may involve the interpretation of the schedule agreement, Arbitration Board No. 298 does not

        17 have jurisdiction; however, that portion of Section II-D providing for a one-hour lag before travel or waiting time starts applies only to employees in relief or extra service while traveling to or from a work location.


INTERPRETATION N0. 41 (Question No. 34; MM and StL-SW)
        QUESTION: Is it the intent and purpose of Section V of the Award that, with respect to employees other than those contemplated by Section I, the cancellation of all existing rules, agreements, and written understandings pertaining to travel time and awayfrom-home expense is a requisite to the application of Section II of those employees not covered in whole or in part by such rules, agreements, and written understandings?

        ANSTdER: No. This answer is supported by the reasoning behind Interpretation No. 3.


INTERPRBTATION N0. 42 (Question No. 35; KWE and StL SW)
        QUESTION: Is it the intent and purpose of Section V of the Award that if the Organization elects to accept the benefits of Section II of the Award for any employees, it must then accept the application of Section II to all employees covered by the working agreement, other than those contemplated by Section I, in lieu of existing agreement rules, agreements, and written understandings pertaining to travel time and away-from-home expenses?

        ANST~TER: No. This answer is supported by the reasoning behind Interpretation No. 3.

                        13


INTERPRETATION N0. 43 (Question No. 36; TCU and IC)
        QUESTION: May the Carrier arbitrarily allocate the expense allowance into two portions--a maximum of y4 .00 for lodging and a maximum of


        Y"3

        .00 for meals?

        Section II is an updating of Referee Cole's decision Number

        in the 40-hour week case. We do not understand that there was

        any breakdown in the allowance for meal and lodging allowance

        under that decision, nor does Section II so contemplate, except

        in the circumstances covered by paragraph number 5 of Memoran

        dum of Board Conference of September 30, 1967, which reads as

        follows: "Under Section II-B, if the Carrier provides a lodging

        facility at an away from headquarters point, and employee is

        agreeable to using such a facility, then the maximum allowance

        will be $3.00 for _aeals."


INTERPRETATION N0. 44 (Question No. 37; TCU and GN)
 QUESTION: May the Carrier arbitrarily determine whether an extra employee
 (a) returns to his headquarters point on his rest days, (b)
 reports directly to his next assignment, or (c) remains at his
 away-from-headquarters assignment?
 If the answer to the above question is 110; what is the extra
 employee entitled to under Section II-B and D if he is not per
 mitted to return to his headquarters point on his rest days?
        ANSI, TER: The Carrier has the right to determine whether an employee should be authorized to return to his headquarters point on any day including rest days or between assignments. Depending upon what advice the Carrier gives the employee, he is entitled to

                        19

        the benefit of either Paragraph "B", or Paragraph "C" and "D" of Section II.


INTERPRETATION N0. 45 (Question No. 38; TCU and CMBtP&P)
        QUESTION: May the Carrier require a newly-hired employee to perform extra work before assigning said employee a "headquarters point" as provided for in Section II-A of the Award; and, thereafter, indiscriminately change said employee's headquarters point to the extent that Section II of the Award is, for all practical purposes, nullified as it pertains to extra employees?

        ANSWER: This question has been resolved on the property on which the dispute arose and is now moot.


        INTERPRETATION N0. 46 (Question No. 39; TCU and StL-SF)

        QUESTION: May Carrier avoid payment of the nine cents (9rp') per mile allowance to employees assigned to dualized stations, who travel from one work point to another, when no election was made to retain the eight cents (Sy) per L-dle allowed under Merrrorandum of Agreement of April 19, 1960, agreeing to the dualization of certain stations?


ANSWER: The question has been withdrawn.

        INTERPRETATION N0. 47 (Question No. 40; TCU and StL-SF)

        QUESTION: May an employee return to his headquarters point on any day that time and travel facilities permit, by free or public transiortation, and be entitled to compensation as provided for under the Award?


ANSWER: This is covered by Interpretation No. 44.
                        20


INTERPRETATION N0. 48 (Question No. 41; 94E and StL-SF)
        QUESTION: Does Section I-B of the Award supersede Agreement Rule 7-17, under which welders and welder helpers are entitled to be reimbursed for actual necessary expenses when they are away from their assigned headquarters?


ANSITER: No. The Organization elected to preserve existing Rule 7-17.

 INTERPRETATION N0. 49 (Question No. 42; TCU and CRI&P)
        Question: Did the Carrier properly designate headquarters points for the employees working on the Chicago Division?


ANSWER: The question has been withdrawn.

 INTERPRETATION N0. 50 (Question No. 43; 161E and MKT)
        QUESTION: Are employees who qualify under Section I-B-4 of the Award for the meal allowance set forth in Section I-B-1, B-2, or B-3 deprived of such allowance for work days, rest days or holidays if they do not actually occupy their camp cars or trailers on such days?

        ANS;IER: No. Section I employees are not required to stay in camp cars to qualify for meal allowance.


Il`ITERPRETATION N0. 51 (Question No. 44; AWE and icT)
        QUESTION: Is J. E. Seidel entitled to the benefits of Section I of the Award during October 1967 while working as foreman of Extra Gang No. 591, and during November and December 1957, and January and F bruary 1968, while working as machine operator on Extra Gang No. 587?

        ANSWER: Yes. The employee in question is entitled to the benefits of Section I. See Interpretation No. 12.

                        21


INTERPRETATION NO. 52 (Question No. 45; MWE and TP&W)
 QUESTION: 1. Can the Carrier avoi,i granting to employees in extra gangs
 Nos. 2 and 3 the benefits of Section 1 of the Award by designating
 "headquarters" for these gangs and changing such "headquarters"
 at intervals as the wor" progresses?
 2. Are the employees in these gangs entitled to be reimbursed,
 retroactive to October 15, 1967, and as long as this practice
 is continued, for the expense of lodging in accordance with
 Section I-A-3, for meals in accordance with Section I-B-3 and
 for travel from one worl; point to another in accordance with
 Section I-C?
 ANSWER: The answer to part one of the question is: No.
 The answer to part two of the question is: Yes. See Inter
 pretation No. 12.

 INTERPRETATION N0. 53 (Question No. 46; TCU and B&OCT)
        QUESTION: Is the Award of Arbitration Board No. 298 applicable to employees affiliated with the Transportation-Communication Employees Union performing service for and on the Baltimore and Ohio Chicago Terminal Railroad Company'


ANSWER: Yes.

 INTERPRETATION NO. 54 (Question 47; iSTE and StL-SF)
 PART: 1. Should Rule 26 of the Agreement effective March 1, 1951 be
 revised as requested by the employes?
 Rule 26 reads as follows:
 "Group A employes assigned to perform service away from
 their headquarters and working variable hours, will not
        22 be assigned regular hours, and will not be paid for time traveling or waiting. They will be allowed time at rate , of eight hours per day for assigned days per week, and in addition pay under provisions of this agreement for actual time worked in excess of eight hours per day or on their assigned rest days and holidays, excluding time traveling or waiting, and will be allowed actual necessary expenses." The employee propose to revise the rule so as to eliminate the language "will not be paid for time traveling or waiting" and change the word "excluding" to "including," as these provisions are contrary to the provisions of Section II of the Award.


ANSWER: The monthly rated employees of the class or craft involved on
 this property receive a monthly rate based on 174 hours. This
 rate does not include pay for time traveling outside of assigned
 hours.
 The employees elected to accept Section II and therefore regard
 less of the provisions of existing Rule 25, the monthly rated
 employees in this case whose monthly rate is based on 174 hours
 are subject to the travel time provisions of Section II-D, except
 that the one hour lag under that Section applies only to employees
 in relief or extra service while traveling to or from a work
 location.
 PART: 2. Axe the employes entitled to preserve Rule 27 of the Agree
 ment effective March 1, 1951?
 Rule 27 reads:
 "The Railway will furnish a bunk car in good order with
 each ditcher outfit."
                        23

The employes requested that this rule be retained and the pro
 visions of Section I-A be applied.
 ANSWER Yes.
 PART: 3. Are employes covered by the Agreement effective March 1,
 1951 who prior to the Award received actual necessary expenses
 while away from their fixed headquarters entitled to have such
 actual necessary expenses preserved?

 ANS14-PR: Yes. See Interpretation PIo. 3.
        PART: 4. Are employes covered by the Agreement effective March 1, 1951 who are in travel service and were not allowed actual necessary expenses or travel time prior to the Award entitled to the benefits of Section I of the Award?


ANS'IER: Yes, but employees who are covered by more favorable rules are
 entitled to have such rules continue to apply.
 PART: 5. Are the employes entitled to preserve the provisions of
 Article 5, Rule 24, of the Agreement effective April 1, 1951
 specifically covering travel time during regular working hours?
 Article 5, Rule 24, reads:
 "Employes required by the management to travel on or off
 their assigned territory in boarding cars will be allowed
 straight time traveling during regular working hours, and
 for their assigned rest days and holidays during hours
 established for wor=: periods on other days."
        ANS17ER: The employees are entitled to retain Rule 24 and to integrate it with Section I-C-1 of the Award. The Memorandum of Agreement of January 8, 1951 is in conflict with Rule 24 and Section I-C-1 and cannot be applied.

24
 PART: 6. Are the employes entitled to preserve the provisions of
 Article 5, Rule 30, of the Agreement effective April 1, 1951?
 Article 5, Rule 30 reads:
 "Employee permanently assigned to duties requiring variable
 hours working on or traveling over an assigned territory
 and away from and out of reach of their regular boarding
 and lodging places or outfit cars, will provide board and
 lodging at their own expense and will be allowed time at
 rate of eight hours per day for assigned days per week,
 and in addition pay under provisions of this agreement for
 actual time worked in excess of eight hours per day or on
 their assigned rest days and on holidays, excluding time
 traveling or waiting, and actual necessary expenses. When
 working at points readily accessible to boarding and
 lodging places or outfit cars, the provisions of this rule
 will not apply."

 ANSSTER: Yes. See answer to part one of this Interpretation No. 54.
 PART: 7. Are the employes entitled to preserve the provisions of
 Article 5, Rule 31, of the Agreement effective April 1, 1951?
 Article 5, Rule 31 reads:
 "Employee in temporary or emergency service, except as pro
 vided in Rule 24, required by the direction of the manage
 ment to leave their home station, will be allowed actual
 time for traveling or waiting during the regular working
 hours. A11 hours worked will be paid for in accordance with
 practice at home station. Travel or waiting time during
              25

the recognized overtime hours at home station will be paid for at the pro rata rate. "If during the time on the road a man is relieved from duty and is permitted to go to bed for five or more hours, such relief time will not be paid for, provided that in no case shall he be paid for a total of less than eight hours each calendar day, when such irregular service prevents the employe from making his regular daily hours at home station. Where meals and lodging are not provided by the railway, actual necessary expenses will be allowed. "Where employes assigned to outfit cars are operating through on motor car and arrive at destination before outfit cars arrive, they will be allowed the pro rata rate for waiting time until the outfit cars do arrive, except where outfit cars will arrive more than five hours after regular quitting time, and men are at stations where board and lodging is available, they will be released at regular quitting time, tied up for five or more hours and allowed expense for meals and lodging without any payment for waiting time. Men will not be tied up at points where board and lodging is not available. "Employes will not be allowed time while traveling in the exercise of seniority rights, or between their homes and designated assembling points, or for other personal reasons."
                        26


ANSWER: The paragraphs of Article 5, Rule 31 deal with different subjects.
 The first and second paragraphs apply to employees subject to
 Section II of the Award. The employees elected to preserve these
 two paragraphs; therefore, these two paragraphs should continue
 to apply to employees subject to those rules in the same manner
 as they were applied prior to the Award. The third paragraph
 of Rule 31, which the employees also elected to preserve, applies
 to employees covered by Section I of the Award. In integrating
 the third paragraph of Rule 31 with Section I-C-1 of the Award
 and with Article 5, Rule ?4 of the agreement between the parties,
 there should be no duplication of benefits.
 PART: 8. Are the employes entitled to integrate the provisions of
 Article 7, Rule 2 of the Agreement effective April 1, 1951 with
 Section I-A-1 of the Award?
 Article 7, Rule 2 reads:
 "It will be the policy to maintain camp cars in good and
 sanitary condition and to furnish bathing facilities when
 practicable and desired by the employes and to provide
 sufficient means of ventilation and air space. All dining
 and sleeping cars will be screened when necessary. Permanent
 camp cars used for road service will be equipped with springs
 consistent with safety and character of car and comfort
 of employes. It will be the duty of the foreman to see
 that cars are kept clean."

 ANSWER: Yes.

 PART: 9. Are the employes entitled to eliminate paragraphs 4 and 5 of
        27 the Letter Agreement dated May 23, 1940, revised effective April 1, 1951? Paragraphs 4 and 5 read: "4. Expenses will not be allowed employes filling positions covered by this agreement when outfit cars are furnished. "5. Employes assigned exclusively to operating power bolt tightening machines or other power machines of similar kind, not assigned to a specific extra gang, district gang or section gang and not furnished outfit cars, will be allowed actual expenses with a maximum of $3.00 per day. Where such employes are assigned bunk car, they will be allowed actual expenses with maximum of $2.00 per day."


ANSWER: Yes.
 PART: 10. Are the employes entitled to integrate Article 3, Rule 8
 with Section II of the Award?
 Article 3, Rule 8 reads:
 "(a) There shall be one regular relief foreman on each
 Roadmaster's territory, whose duties shall be to serve in
 emergency and temporary vacancies. The position shall be
 regularly bulletined and the senior laborer on the Road
 master's territory applying shall be selected, provided
 ability and merit are sufficient. While serving as relief
 foreman on emergency or temporary vacancies he shall receive
 the compensation paid the person he relieves. While not
 engaged as relief foreman on emergency or temporary vacancies,
 he shall not receive extra compensation above that of the
 class in which he is regularly employed. (Employe covered
                        28

            by this Rule should be allowed pay for time necessary to lose from his regular position in going to or returning from filling emergency or temporary vacancies as foreman, such payment to be made at regular laborer's rate.) After serving in the capacity of relief foreman the required 60 days, as provided in these rules, he shall establish seniority rights as foreman, and will be entitled to bid on new positions or vacancies, on the Superintendent's Division. Nothing in this rule shall be construed to prevent a Roadmaster from affording relief in other emergencies when the regular relief foreman is not available. "(b) Employe holding foreman's seniority rights, but who does not have sufficient seniority to hold regular assignment as foreman or assistant district gang foreman, will be entitled to assignment as relief foreman on the district where he holds his laborer's seniority."


ANSWER: Yes. Article 3, Rule 8, is not in conflict with the Award. The
 employees are entitled to retain it and integrate it with Section
 II but there can be no duplication of benefits.
 PART: 11. Are the employes entitled to preserve paragraph 6 of the
        Letter Agreement dated May 23, 1940, revised April 1, 1951 and

            November 20, 1953, which reads: "Diesel-Electric locomotive crane operators, track mowing machine operators and helpers, ballast discer operators and helpers, ballast regulator machine operators and helpers, Jackson Multiple Tamper machine operator not furnished outfit cars will be allowed expenses provided for in Article 5, Rule 30 of the Maintenance of Way Agreement.

ANSWER: Yes. See answers to parts one and six of this Interpretation
 No. 54.
 INTERPRETATION N0. 55 (Question No. 48; MWE and PC)
 QUESTION: Is an employee qualified to receive a meal allowance of $1.00
 a day under Section I-B-1 of the Award entitled to receive such
 allowance if he does not stay in the camp cars or trailers when
 they are located in the vicinity of his home and he eats his
 meals at home?
 ANSWER: Yes.
 INTERPRETATION N0. 56 (Question No. 49; MWE and T&P)
 QUESTION: Are the members of Track Gang No. 36 entitled to the benefits
 of Section I of the Award on and after December 12, 1967?
 ANSWER: Yes. See Interpretation No. 12.

 (Organization's explanatory note to Interpretation No. 56--not a part of the interpretation. This explanation is given because the interpretation itself does not contain the actual circumstances. The question which gave rise to the dispute in this case may be stated as follows: Can the carrier avoid granting to the employes concerned the benefits of Section I by removing them from camp cars, designating "headquarters" for them and changing such "headquarters" at intervals as the work progresses? This is the same basic question as was posed in Interpretation No. 52. The effect of the answer in Interpretation No. 56, as it was in Interpretation No. 52 as well as Interpretation No. 12, is that the carrier cannot avoid the application of Section I in such circumstances.)

 INTERPRETATION N0. 57 (Question No. 50; MWE and EJ&E)
 QUESTION: 1. Under the provisions of Section V of the Award, may the
 employees reject sub-paragraph D of Section II and thereby retain
 the benefits of the existing agreement and practices thereunder
 which treat time consumed in going from headquarters point to
 work location and return as time worked and which is paid for at
 the overtime rates when performed during overtime hours%
                        30

        2. Does the term "headquarters point" used at various places within Section II contemplate that the headquarters point can be designated as an entire division, a city, a general area, or should it specify a particular and specific point? 3. Did the General Chairman's letter of January 31, 1968 represent a timely election under Section V?

ANSSIER: 1. The answer to part one of the question is: the employees may
 reject sub-paragraph D of Section II and retain the existing rules
 and practices.
 2. The Organization withdrew part two of the question at the
 executive session of the Board with the right to re-submit.
 3. The answer to part three of the question is: Yes.

        INTERPRETATION N0. 58 (Carrier's Question No. 1; MWE and CB&Q)

        QUESTION: Are Section I employees entitled to meal allowance while stationed in their home towns and such employees are living at home with their families?


ANSWER: Yes. See Interpretation No. 55.

 Dated this 29th day of March, 1969 in the city of Uashington, D. C.
 Arbitration Board No. 298

                        Isl Paul D. Hanlon

                        Paul D. Hanlon, Neutral Member,

                        Chairman


                        David H. Stowe

                        David H. Stowe, Neutral Member

31

 /s/ George E. Laighty
 George E. Leighty, Employee Member

 /s/ Harold C. Crotty
 Harold C. Crotty, Employee Member

 Al vin E. Egbers
 Alvin E. Egbers, Carrier Member

 /s/ Richard L. Harvey.
 Richard L. Harvey, Carrier Member
                        32


                    CERTIFICATE


We the members of Arbitration Board No. 298, Case No. A-7948 in the proceedings to which this Certificate is attached hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Interpretations Numbered 12 through 58 to the Award of the Board in said proceeding, as the same is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

                        Arbitration Board No. 298


                        /s/ Paul D. Hanlon _

                        Paul D. Hanlon, Neutral Member,

                        Chairman


                        /s/ David H. Stowe

                        David H. Stowe, Neutral Member


                        Ls/ George E. Leighty

                        George E. Leighty, Employee Member


                        /s/ Harold C. Crotty

                        Harold C. Crotty, Employee Member


                        /s/ Alvin E. Egbers

                        Alvin E. Egbers, Carrier Mete


                        /s/ Richard L. Harvey

                        Richard L. Harvey, Carrier Member


Washington, D. C. March 29, 1969