PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 1516

Award No. 18

Case No. 48
Org. File No. 1065-1058-269
Carr. File No. IDB-6424

Case No. 49
Org. File No. 1065-1058-271
Carr. File No. IEB=6465

Parties    United Transportation Union

to         and

Dispute    The Union Pacific Railroad Company

Statement of Claim: 

(48) Claim of various Conductors and Brakemen on various dates account runaround at initial terminal.

(49) Claim of various Conductors and Brakemen on various dates for 50 miles runaround at terminal.

Findings:

The Board finds, after hearing upon the whole record and all evidence, that the parties herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway labor Act, as amended, and that this Board is duly constituted by Agreement dated March 3, 1975, and it has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.

Interdivisional service was established in early 1973, which thereby eliminated Huntington, Oregon, as the away from home terminal of the road freight crews for the two separate seniority districts of the Idaho and Oregon Divisions. Each division maintained a separate labor agreement. Thereafter, said crews operated in two separate pools from and between their respective home terminals of Nampa, Idaho, and La Grande, Oregon, and the opposite home terminal on the other seniority district and Division which then became their away from home terminal. The Interdivisional Agreement primarily provided for apportionment of work, regulation of crews and the manning of the service as between the two Divisions, and, except as otherwise specifically provided therein, the applicable Division Agreements were otherwise governing these crews.

All of the instant claims, except one, involved Idaho Division Nampa crews being runaround by LaGrande, Oregon Division crews. The exception involves a claim of a Nampa crew being runaround on November 5, 19/3, by another Nampa crew.

Rule 78 (c) of the Division Agreement effective October 16, 1958, provides:

"Brakemen who are called in their turn for pool freight or unassigned freight service in the same direction who do not depart from their terminal in the order called, will be allowed a runaround of fifty miles."

The Board finds that there is no merit to claims which alleged a runaround occurs as between a crew of one seniority district being runaround when a crew of the other seniority district departs the terminal in other than the order called. The Interdivisional Agreement, as amended, expressly precludes such as constituting a payable runaround. Further, the procedures established in said agreement providing for equalization of miles run and the apportionment of work specifically protects the interests of the respective pools. However, such is not true where crews of the same seniority district in this service are involved. In such instances, Rule 78(c) of the Division Agreement becomes applicable and payment of fifty miles is thus in order.

Consequently, all the claims in Case No. 48 are denied except that of Conductor Simmons and crew for November 5, 1973, when he was runaround by Conductor Wilcox, which is sustained for a fifty mile run around. All the claims in Case No. 49 are denied.

Award:

Claims in Case 48 are denied, except that of Conductor Wilcox which is sustained for fifty (50) miles.

Claims in Case 49 are denied.

Order:

Carrier is directed to apply this Award on or before June 1, 1976.

George P. Lechner, Employee Member        Alden Lott, Carrier Member

Arthur T. Van Wart, Chairman
and Neutral Member

Issued at San Francisco, California, May 1, 1976.