PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 4269
AWARD NO. 50

CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. (Former SCL Railroad Company)

VS.

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: 87036-1031-C&T - Claim of Conductor C. R. Wolf, Employee ID No. 145861, Trainmen E. G. Morris, ID No. 96530 and J. A. Hobbs, Jr., ID No. 146265, for payment of 171 miles, at through freight rate, with 92 cars, less the 163 miles allowed on the second payroll period of August, 1986, for service on Train Nos. S-142024 and U-950-22 on August 24, 1986, and for all similar claims held in abeyance to this claim.

STATEMENT OF FACTS: Conductor C. R. Wolf and Trainmen E. G. Morris and J. A. Hobbs, Jr., hereinafter claimants, were regularly assigned in pool service in the carrier's Savannah-Waycross-Jacksonville-Baldwin through freight pool (commonly referred to as the "South Pool"), with the home terminal at Savannah, Georgia. Claimants stood first out at the away-from-home terminal of Jacksonville, Florida, when they were called to protect Train No. S-142-24 (a piggyback train) from Jacksonville to Waycross, Georgia, going on duty at the Moncrief Yard, Florida, at 12;15PM, August 24, 1986.

Claimants reported for duty at Moncrief Yard, received their train consist, train orders, signed the bulletin book and then were informed by the yardmaster that they would be bused from Moncrief Yard to the Jacksonville Piggyback Ramp facility, where they would take charge of Train No. S-142-24. Accordingly, claimants were bused to the piggyback ramp, departing Moncrief Yard at 12:18PM, arriving at Jacksonville Ramp at 12:40PM. Thereafter, claimants took charge of their train and departed for Waycross at 12:43PM, arriving Waycross and going off duty at 2:05PM.

For this particular combination of service, claims were made by Conductor Wolf and his crew for 171 miles at through freight rate, eight miles of which involved the bus transport between Moncrief Yard and the Piggyback facility, located within the Jacksonville terminal limits. Such claim was timely denied and has been properly appealed to this board for resolution.

RELEVANT AGREEMENT PROVISIONS:

Addendum No. IV of the UTU Schedule Agreement states:

"(1) Article 6 of the former Seaboard Railroad Schedule Agreement would be adopted and made effective on the merged Company and that such rule contemplates that the time of conductors and trainmen would continue until all members of the train crew had completed the required duties incident to the service trip at the final terminal, except, of course, where individual members of the crew are relieved account illness or accident or in instances such as where a flagman might have been left on line of road;

"(2) the present mileage being paid on existing runs will be continued until the entire railroad is surveyed;

"(3) new runs operated over trackage not previously used for existing runs will be paid mileage from the center of the terminating yard; and

"(4) all members of each train crew will be paid the same mileage for each trip regardless of any individual duties required at terminals."PLB NO. 4269 Award No. 50 Page No. 3

Article 5 of the UTU-C&T Schedule Agreement states:

"(a) In all road service, except passenger service, 100 miles or less, 8 hours or less (straight-away or turnaround) shall constitute a day's work. Miles in excess of 100 will be paid for at the mileage rates provided."

Article VIII, Section l(a) states: "Section 1 - Road Crews

"Road crews may perform the following work in connection with their own trains without additional compensation:

"(a) Get or leave their train at any location within the initial and final terminals and handle their own switches. When a crew is required to report for duty or is relieved from duty at a point other than the on and off duty point .fixed for that assignment and such point is not within reasonable walking distance of the on and off duty point, transportation will be provided."

FINDINGS; Under the whole record and all the evidence, after hearing, the Board finds that the parties herein are carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and this Board is duly constituted by agreement under public law and has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter.

The operative facts relative to these "rubber tire mileage" claims are not in dispute; claimants actually traveled eight miles by bus between Moncrief Yard and the intermodal facility at Jacksonville, Florida. Furthermore, during the periods between October, 1982, and May, 1983, the crews of Train No. 173 were, on eighteen separate occasions, paid three miles (highway) for surface travel between the carrier's West Jacksonville Yard and the Moncrief Yard; three miles (rail) Moncrief Yard to West Jacksonville Yard, and 124 miles West Jacksonville Yard to Wildwood. Thus the question presented to this board is purely one involving the law of contract construction.PLB No. 4269 Award No. 50 Page No. 4

The carrier defends its categorical rejection of these claims on each of the following independent grounds, to-wit:

(1) Miles traveled by automobile (bus) within terminal limits between the actual on duty point and the physical location of assigned train is not independently compensable.

(2) Historical and contractual mileage paid on terminal to terminal assignments had been calculated from the "center" of the initial yard to the "center" of the final yard.

(3) The October 31, 1985, National Agreement (Article VIII, Section l(a)) prospectively eliminated all disputes concerning the types of claims involved in this circumstance.

In our review of the history of this issue, as developed solely by the record, we are persuaded that prior to the 1985 National Agreement these types of claims were not uniformly approved or rejected (i.e. Train 173 West Jacksonville Yard to Wildwood/Bennett Yard to Cooper Yard, Charlotte, South Carolina). Such "localized practice", whether evolving through inadvertent but consistent approval of pay claims, or by special agreement, nevertheless appear to be consistent with the implications of the language included in Addendum No. 4, paragraph 2 of the UTU Schedule Agreement set forth hereinabove. Such practice, even if considered erroneous as argued by the carrier, may have had a localized binding effect prior to the 1985 National Agreement Amendments. However, the pivotal language of Section 1 of such (1985) agreement is relatively unambiguous and arguably puts to rest this type of dispute.

Furthermore, although the carrier has on previous occasions defended against a multitude of these types of claims (separate "deadhead" pay for being transported by motor vehicle before and after train service), the arguments raised in many of its submissions, whereby it proposed that payment should be based on a "total time and mileage basis", is not perceived by this board to be patently inconsistent with the post-1985 National Agreement changes.

Accordingly, we find that the mileage between the two points involved in this assignment has been calculated from the designated center of the two yards and that all additional mileage claimed by the claimants only involved transportation to their train, which occurred solely within terminal limits. Therefore their pay claim for the additional eight miles is not contractually supportable under the 1985 National Agreement provisions.

AWARD: Claims are disposed of as follows: Denied.

Don B. Hays, Neutral Member

T. M. Mitchell, Carrier Member              Billy R. Weaver, Organization Member

Date