Award No. 22
Case No. 22 


PARTIES             United Transportation Union

                    Union Pacific Railroad Company
                    (Eastern District)


Claim of Conductor T. L. Curless and Brakemen C. R. Mills and F. R. Gonzales for 50 miles multiple runaround under the provisions of Schedule Rule 41(c). Carrier paid first runaround.


Upon the whole record, after hearing, the Board finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board is duly constituted under Public Law 89-456 and has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.

The facts in this matter are not in dispute. It is apparent that due to an error made by the crew dispatcher, which involved inadvertently tying up Claimants at the wrong time, Claimants were runaround twice by two crews. Claimants should have been shown rested at 8:45 A.M. but instead were shown rested at 10:45 A.M. Thus, one crew was called at 9:30 A.M. and the second crew called at 10:15 A.M. Claimants were then called to duty at 11:15 A.M. As a result of this obvious runaround, Claimants were paid one 50 mile penalty, under the provisions of Rule 41. Rule 41 provides:

(c) Not Called In Turn. Crews not called in their turn will be allowed 50 miles and stand first out; if not called within 8 hours, 100 miles will be allowed and stand first out. Crews are not runaround when they take the train called for.

Petitioner relies, in addition to the language of the rule, on prior settlements on this property, 1947 and 1982, as well as on Awards of Public Law Board 1342, on another property. Carrier, on the other hand, insists that there were settlements both ways over the years on the property and that the authoritative decisions over the years on this property, support its position. Carrier cites, among others, Public Law Board 4329, Award No. 14, as well as Public Law Board 3923, in its Award No. 6.

An analysis of the entire record of this matter, makes it clear that this issue of multiple runarounds, was dealt with effectively in Award No. 3, of Public Law Board No. 721. In that case the Board held that no rule or practice had been cited, justifying a claim from multiple runarounds. And since the Claimants had already been compensated in excess of the amount payable for a single runaround (50 miles) there was no basis for the claim. This Board believes that the issue, as resolved in the early interpretation by Public Law Board No. 721, as well as by the later Boards, indicated supra, are sufficient to indicate that there is no rule support for Petitioner's position in this dispute. The claim must be denied.


Claim denied.


I.M. Lieberman, Neutral-Chairman

G. A. Eickmann, Employee Member

Scott Hinckley, Carrier Member

Omaha, Nebraska
January 22, 1992