ARBITRATION BOARD NO. 298

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION )
Between )
CARRIERS REPRESENTED BY THE )
NATIONAL RAILWAY LABOR CONFERENCE )
AND THE SOUTHEASTERN, EASTERN AND )
WESTERN CARRIERS' CONFERENCE COMMITTEES )

INTERPRETATIONS

and ) NUMBERED

59 THROUGH 76
EMPLOYEES'NATIONAL CONFERENCE )
COMMITTEE, FIVE COOPERATING RAILWAY )
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS )
1
)
(NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD )
CASE N0. A-7948) )

BOARD OF ARBITRATION

P. D. Hanlon, Neutral Member, Chairman F. A. O'Neill, Jr., Neutral Member G. E. Leighty, Employee Member H. C. Crotty, Employee Member A. E. Egbers, Carrier Member R. L. Harvey, Carrier Member

INTERPRETATION NO. 59 (Question No. 1; Bi·1WE and CT1St.P&P)

QUESTION: Are employes covered by Section I of the award entitled to a meal allowance of one dollar a day or to a meal allowance of three dollars a day under the following described conditions: (1) Cooking and eating facilities are provided by the Carrier and (2) The Carrier furnishes and pays the salary of the cc but (3) The food staples are purchased and supplied by the general foreman or roadmaster and (4) The general foreman or roadmaster requires each employe to pay a fixed daily charge for meals as opposed to pro-rating the cost of the food staples as in the case of cooperative boarding.

ANSWER: Under the circumstances cited, the employees are entitle to a meal allowance of $1.00 a day but the Carrier must instruct its general foreman or roadmaster to purchase the food and account for the actual cost of the food and pro-rate the cost among the participating employees.

INTERPRETATION NO. 60 (Question No. 3; BMWE and DMSIRR)

QUESTION: May the Carrier avoid granting employees in the Track Material Recovery Crew the benefits provided within sections I-B(3) and I-C of the Award by assigning them to a designated headquarters point which is changed at intervals as the work progresses under the guise of abolishing the crew at one point and reestablishing it at another point?

ANSWER: No. See Interpretation No. 52.
INTERPRETATION N0. 61 (Question No.8; T-C Division BRAC and DM&IF

QUESTION: Is the time spent between the termination of a call ar the time a position is scheduled to begin work conside as time spent waiting for the employees shift to begin under the provisions of section II-B?

ANSWER: The question has been withdrawn.
INTERPRETATION NO. 62 (Question No. 17; BRS and IC)

QUESTION: Question of how much meal allowances employees of Signal Gang 305 are entitled to when kitchen car not available beginning October 15, 1970.

ANSWER: While the kitchen car was unavailable, the employees were entitled to the $3.00 per day allowance under section I-B-3.

INTERPRETATION NO. 63 (Question No. i5; BRS and CMSt.P&P)

QUESTION: Question of whether Signal Helper D. A. Entwistle is entitled to full expenses, or only allowances of Award 298 for certain dates in April, Nay and June, 1970.

ANSWER: Under the circumstances of this case, claimant is entitled to the actual expense incurred for the meals in question.

INTERPRETATION NO. 64 (Question No. 16; BRS and CMSt.P&P)

QUESTION: Question of whether Special Signal Maintainer J. D. Schmeling is entitled to full expenses or only allowances of Award 298, for certain dates November 2 through 5, 1970.

ANSWER: Under the circumstances of this case, claimant is entitled to actual expenses incurred for the meals in question.

INTERPRETATION NO. 65 (Question No. 10; BRS and UP)

QUESTION: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Union Pacific Railroad Company that H. E. Hogg, L. Huaracha, A. 11. Brom, C. J. Ingram, W. W. Ingram, M. J. Rothenberger, C. F. Ripp and J. L. Alexander, employees of roster number 5, Eastern District Signal Gang 3323 (3120) be paid the benefits to which they are entitled under Section I-A-1, I-B-3 and I-C-1 of the award of Arbitration Board No. 298 for the periods November 7, 1967 to October 14, 1968 and November 15, 1968 to April 21, 1969.

ANSWER: On November 7, 1967, the Carrier established North Platte
as the fixed headquarters of this Gang and the headquarters
point remained the same thereafter. On two occasions the
services of the Gang were utilized temporarily, once for
31 days and once for 2 days, at other locations and on those
occasions they were paid actual expenses. Under these
circumstances, the handling of these men by the Carrier
was consistent with the provisions of the Award and the
claims are not valid.
INTERPRETATION NO. 66 (Question No. 12; BRS and LVRC)

QUESTION: Question of whether certain named Signal Gang employees are entitled to daily meal and lodging allowances for certain periods, Account Gangs established without camp cars; and headquarters changed in less than a year.

ANSWER: The employees in question are in a type of service covered
by Section I of the Award. Since these men do not report at
the same point throughout a period of twelve months or more,
and since no lod.-ind or meal facilities are furnished by the
Carrier, they are entitled to the meal allowance provided in
Section I-B-3 and lodging expense if any under I-A-3. See
Interpretation No. 12.
INTERPRETATION NO. 67 (Question No. 13; BRS and LVRC)

QUESTION: Question of whether or not Signalmen Bennett, Fech, and Lightcap are entitled to daily meal and lodging allowances of Award 298 while working on Gang established at Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, then moved to Oak Island, New Jersey, with no camp cars furnished.

ANSWER: Yes. See Interpretation No. 66.
INTERPRETATION NO. 68 (Question No. 14; BRS and LVRC)

QUESTION: Question of whether or not Signal Foreman F. X. Jewell and other Signal Gang employees are entitled to the meal and lodging allowances of Award 298 while working on Signal Gang established at Towanda, Pennsylvania, during June, 1970, without camp cars.

ANSWER: Yes. See Interpretation No. 66.
INTERPRETATION NO. 69 (Question No. 5; BR=.C and BA&PRC)

QUESTION: 1. Does Section II, Paragraph A, of the Board's Award

. require the Carrier to designate a specific work point,

facility or work location as the headquarters point for

regular assigned relief positions and regular assigned

positions?

2. Do the provisions of Section II, Paragraphs B and C

of the Award, apply to regular assigned relief positions

and the regular assigned incumbents thereof who perform

relief work at different locations within their seniority

district?

3. Can the Carrier evade application of or circumvent the

provisions of Section II of the Award by designating on

the bulletin for a relief position that the "headquarters

point" is that of the position being relieved?

ANSWER: 1. Section II, Paragraph A, requires the Carrier to
designate a single headquarters point for each position
or employee.
2. Yes.
3. No.
INTERPRETATION NO. 70 (Question No. 7; BRAC and BA&PRC)

QUESTION: 1. Does Section II, Paragraph A, of the Board's Award
require the Carrier to designate a specific work point,
facility or work location as the "headquarters point"
for unassigned employes?
2. Do the provisions of Section II, Paragraphs B, C
and D of the Board's Award apply to unassigned employees
who perform relief work at different locations within
their seniority district?
3. Can the Carrier evade application of or circumvent
the provisions of Section II of the Board's Award by the
contention that the "headquarters point" encompasses
the breadth of the seniority district?

ANSWER: See Interpretation No. 69
INTERPRETATION NO. 71 (Question No. 18; BRAC and BA&PRC)

QUESTION: 1. Does Section II, Paragraph A, of the Board's Award
require the Carrier to designate a specific work point,
facility or work location as the "headquarters point"
for unassigned employes?
2. Do the provisions of Section II, Paragraph B, C
and D of the Board's Award apply to unassigned employes
who perform relief work at different locations within
their seniority district?
3. Can the Carrier evade application of or circumvent
the provisions of Section II of the Board's Award by
the contention that the "headquarters point" is that
of the position being relieved or that the "headquarters
point" encompasses the breadth of the seniority district?
4. Did the Carrier violate the provisions of Section II
of the Award, as adopted, by refusing to pay travel al
lowance to vacation relief man, Robert W. Idaehl, for
travel to and from Anaconda to Butte, Montana between
July 27 and August 16, 1970, both dates inclusive, while
relieving at that point in accordance with the bulletined
assignment he was awarded.

ANSWER: See Interpretation No. 69.
1

INTERPRETATION NO. 72 (Question No. 6; BRAC and B&0)

QUESTION: (1) Does the term "headquarters point" as used in Arbitration Board No. 298 Award, executed September 30, 1967, Section IIA, mean a City or Town, a Division, a Seniority District, a Terminal, a single specified work location, or, if some other meaning is applicable, what is the definition of the term? (2) Is the Carrier privileged to designate more than one "headquarters point" for a relief position which relieves several regular positions bulletined to work at different locations? (3) Are the terms of the Award complied-with if the Carrier -esignates as a "headquarters point" for a relief position an entire terminal encompassing more than one reporting location for the regular positions relieved? (4) Is Carrier required to pay travel pay and make reimbursement for expenses for travel between two, or more, reporting locations within a terminal? (5) Is. the incumbent of a regularly assigned Relief Position assigned to work as follows:

Day Location

Saturday -Freight Office, McKeesport, Pa.

Sunday -Freight Office, McKeesport, Pa.

Monday -Ticket Office, McKeesport, Pa

Tuesday -Ticket Office, Pittsburgh, Pa.

Wednesday -Ticket Office, Pittsburgh, Pa.

Thursday -Rest Day

Friday -Rest Day

who resides at McKeesport, Pa., entitled to reimbursement for meals and travel expenses, and travel pay for travel: , to and working at Pittsburgh?, McKeesport? when Carrier has designated "Pittsburgh" as the "headquarters."

ANSWER: The question has been withdrawn

-ump~rpqqTm uaaq spq uoTqsanb aqy :MISLTd

ZszpTTop (£) aazqq 30

aOuPMOTTP Taaui XTTPP OL14 =03 ~3zTpnb 04 zapzo uz saOupqsui qons UT sazipsszunuoo zo squpznpqsaz uz STpaUI zzaqq utpqqo JIaqq qsnu: zo 'abpzoqs zaqpm pup zaqpm aTqpqTns buzpnTOUi

saTqTTTOpg buzqpa PUP butxoo0 qqia1 za-raapD aqq nq paddTnba

,CTaqpnbapp qou azp qolqm szpo qrjqno uz sTpaui zzaqq qsa, pup aapdazd ~aqq uaqbl szpjTop (S) aaaqq 90 aDupMOTTE

Teaui ATTpp p oq paTqzqua saloTdura I uoiqoaS azy :NO I~T S3f10

(NE PUP 3!ONH :~ 'Okl uOiqsOnb) EL 'ON rOIJMlIdddUaIINI

INTEPPRF;TATIO\' NO. 74 (Ouestion No. 9: TC Division, FRS^.C. and L R \)

QUESTION: Did the elections made by the employees as outlined result in a duplication of benefits?

ANSWER: The question does not properly reflect the issue in dispute. The
only question presented to the Board is whether monthly_rated
telephone and telegraph employees are subject to the travel
time provision of the Award. A review of the claims which
give rise to this question indicates that the answer depends upon
whether the travel in question occurred on a rest day or on a
work day. If it occurred on a rest day, the employees are en
titled to compensation as claimed and there would be no dupi_
cation of benefits. If it occurred on a work day, they are not
so entitled.
INTERPRETATION N0. 75 (Question No. 2; BM:1E and CMST.P&P)

QUESTION: Can the Carrier avoid granting the employees in Division Extra Gangs 3519 and 3645 the benefits provided in Sections I-A-3 and I-B-3 of the Award by removing them from camp cars and by designating a headquarters point where meals and lodging are not available?

ANSWER: The facts in connection with this case indicate that the Carrier discontinued the use of camp cars and designated headquarters points at locations where absolutely no lodging or meals were available within 15 miles. Such inequitable handling was not contemplated by the Award; and under the particular facts and circumstances of this case, the question must be answered in the negative.

INTERPRETATION NO. 76 (Question No. 11; 3RS and C:iST.P&P)

QUESTION: Are employees confined to a camp car Gang entitled to tl expense benefits of their schedule agreement, or the mez and lodging allowances of the Award of Arbitration Boarc No. 298 when the camp cars are in transit and not avail to the men, thus resulting their being required to obta= meals elsewhere?

ANSWER: This question is similar to those presented by the sa=.. parties in Interpretations Nos. 63 and 64; and under the circumstances cited, the employees are entitled to ' expense benefits of their schedule agreement.

Dated this 25th day of I-lay, 1972, in the city of Washington, D.C.

Arbitration Board No. 298

Paul D. Hanlon, Neutral Member,

Chairman

r

Francis A. O'Neill, Jr., N~dtral

member -

George E. Leighty, ~~ yee'hlember

;/ ,

;~1,11,~,~/ ~", (; ~--~.

Harold C.'Crotty, Employee Member

Alvin E. Egbers, Carrier member

Richard L. Harvey, Carrier Member

c.gRTIFICATE

We the members of Arbitratian 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 59 throxqgh 76 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

t'U Z)/h~,, t v° 112,

Paul D. Hanlon, Neutral Member,

Chairman

A

Francis A. O'Neill, Jr. , Neutral Member

i,,

George E. Leighty, Em6qyee i,:a_^.ioer

ll ~ ~ . U

Harold C. Crotty, Fmloyee Member

Alvin E. Egbers, C rrier Member

i

Richard L. Harvey, Carrier Member

Washington D. C. May 25, 1972