Award No. 10
Case No. 10
PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 4897
Union Pacific Railroad Company
United Transportation Union (C&T)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of Conductor, R. L. Mohr and Brakeman, G. E. Luenenburg and T. L. Keith for 100 miles account runaround on October 17, 1983.
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.
On October 17, 1983, Claimants were first out on their respective Second District extra boards. On that date a Second District conductor and his crew were called for interdivisional service from North Platte to Marysville. In addition, the same crew on that date was transported to Grand Island, Nebraska and picked up a steel work train and delivered it to Hastings, Nebraska and deadheaded into their objective terminal at Marysville. Claimants herein filed their claim for 100 miles because they were not used to take the steel work train from Grand Island to Hastings based on their being runaround.
Petitioner bases its position on the Interdivisional Agreement of 1972 and in particular Part I, Section l(b), which specifically defines the home terminal for second district employees, as well as the mileage involved. In that section it provides, among other things, as follows:
Employees operating from Marysville to North Platte will be allowed 249 road miles; employees operating from North Platte to Marysville will be allowed 248 road miles.
Petitioner notes that if the run were to include Grand Island, the mileage would be 278 or 279 road miles. However, Petitioner insists that there is no language in the 1972 Agreement permitting side trips to Grand Island or any other terminal point without penalty. Petitioner cites Part VII, Section 1, of the 1972 Agreement, which states:
Irregular and unassigned non-interdivisional service, including dog-catching, shall be protected and manned by extra employees from the seniority district over which such service operates.
In conclusion, Petitioner insists that Carrier erred in using an unassigned interdivisional crew beyond the boundaries of their assignment. Since the Controlling Agreement defined the limits of the assigned operation, and since the side trip to Grand Island was outside of those limits, the Carrier should not have used the assigned crew to run beyond the defined limits of their assignment. According to the irregular and unassigned service provisions of the Agreement, the trip in question should have been manned by extra board personnel, the claimants herein, since they were first out and available. Since claimants were runaround, Petitioner insists that they are entitled to 100 miles as a penalty for the obvious and intentional violation of the Interdivisional Run Agreement.
Carrier argues that an interdivisional crew in this instance may make a side trip such as that made herein without penalty. According to Carrier, there is no provision in the 1972 Interdivisional Run Agreement, or any other schedule agreement, which prohibits such a side trip. In addition, there is no penalty provision in the agreements cited by Petitioner. Therefore, no penalty may be assessed. While conceding that the interdivisional crew did make a side trip to Grand Island, which is on the second seniority district, this was no more than a side trip and was not, in fact, outside the scope of the territory to which the interdivisional run crew was assigned. Carrier has submitted a series of prior awards in support of its position. Carrier's argument essentially is that there was no irregular service involved and this was interdivisional service with a side trip, and hence there was no runaround. As an additional point, Carrier maintains that there is no penalty payment provision in the rule and, therefore, even if Carrier was incorrect, which it denies, no penalty could be awarded without rule support.
The crux of this dispute is whether indeed the Interdivisional Run Agreement permits a side trip such as that found herein without penalty. Concededly the trip in question to Grand Island, was indeed a side trip. In view of the specific definition of the mileage, as well as the terminal points of the interdivisional run in question, there is no doubt but that the trip to Grand Island, which was approximately 30 miles east of Gibbon, was indeed a side trip which must be characterized as irregular or unassigned non-interdivisional service (covered by Part VII, Section 1 of the Agreement, supra).
Carrier has relied in part on two awards dealing with related problems. Award No. 3, of Public Law Board 2096, as well as Award No. 1 of Public Law Board 4266. It must be noted that both of the awards cited by Carrier dealt with set-offs in the course of interdivisional runs. Neither case is in point with the problem herein, since neither case involved side trips beyond the defined limits of the interdivisional run.
From the record of this dispute, it is quite apparent that the movement in question, termed a side trip by Petitioner, was a pure work train movement. As such, it was not part of the interdivisional run and was indeed correctly characterized by Petitioner as an unassigned irregular run. With that definition in mind, it is clear that Claimants herein were runaround and were entitled to a claim to be sustained. The nature of the payment, however, is one which has been clearly and historically relied upon in this industry, as a payment for protecting the integrity of the agreement. Claimants herein lost a work opportunity, and since they were runaround are entitled to such payment.
Carrier will comply with the Award herein within 30 days from the date hereof.
I.M. Lieberman, Neutral-Chairman
G. A. Eickmann, Employee Member
Scott Hinckley, Carrier Member
Omaha, Nebraska December 30, 1991