PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 6075

AWARD NO. 11
CASE NO. 11
CARRIER FILE: CT-BL-03-171
ORG. FILE: BL-93-197

PARTIES                  NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
  TO                                  and
DISPUTE                     UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION

Claim on behalf of Pocahontas Division Conductor K. A. Bennett for the crew consist special allowance account having to stop en route while in deadhead service to check in with the Dispatcher to ascertain whether or not their service was needed on a train.

The Board after hearing upon the whole record and all of the evidence, finds that the parties herein are the Carrier and Organization, respectively, within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended; that this Board is duly constituted under Public Law 89-456 and has jurisdiction over the parties and dispute involved here; and that the parties were given due notice of the hearing thereon.

On July 10, 1993, the Claimant was working in unassigned pool freight service between Weller, West Virginia (away-from-home terminal) and Bluefield, West Virginia (home terminal). He and his crew were called in combined service at 11:00 p.m. to deadhead between the two locations. At that time, the Claimant received a set of train orders and dispatcher bulletins for the crew in case they were later needed for actual service. He was also advised to stop at Richlands, Virginia (an intermediate point) and call the dispatcher to determine if the crew would be inducted into separate service. Claimant departed for Richlands by taxicab at 11:15 p. m. When arriving at that location, he had the taxicab stop so he could telephone the dispatcher for further instructions. The dispatcher informed the Claimant to complete the deadhead to Bluefield, Virginia, since his crew would not be needed for service. The Claimant, nevertheless, submitted a claim for the crew consist special allowance of $15.00 for his stop at Richlands, to call the dispatcher. It was his contention that the stop and telephone call at Richlands ended the deadhead trip.

The Organization maintains that the claim for a $15.00 special allowance is warranted because the Claimant in this instance began a separate and new service trip. In this regard, the Organization cites the Basic Day Rule and Article VIII - Road, Yard and Incidental Work, Section 3 of the 1985 UTU National Agreement to support its position. The Carrier, arguing to the contrary, relies on Article - Deadhead, Section 1 of the same National Agreement and posits that the Claimant's telephone call to the dispatcher was a task that was de minims in nature which did not entitle him to additional compensation under the 1991 Crew Consist Agreement.

Here, the Carrier's position is supported by the facts and companion arbitral authority. On point is Public Law Board No. 3146, Award No. 30 (Weston 1990), which held "...that the mere dialing of a routine telephone call by a conductor in connection with his own assignment is not the type of 'incidental work' that provides a basis for compensation. All the conductor did was to check with the dispatcher to see if service was required. It manifestly did not justify additional pay for the conductor and two other crewmembers of his crew. Carrier was entitled to that minimum measure of productivity and flexibility in its operation. Id. at 3." See also Public Law Board No. 5680, Award No. 8 (Twomey, 1996).

Braced by the foregoing authority, this Board finds that the Claimant's telephone call to the dispatcher en route to an intermediate point on the day in question did not convert the original call for combined service and deadhead into a new and separate service trip. Accordingly, the Claimant was not entitled to the $15.00 special allowance.

Claim denied.

Charles P. Fischbach
Chairman and Neutral Member

K. J. O'Brien, Carrier Member           L.P. King, Jr., Employee Member

Dated at Chicago, Illinois,
this 26th day of December, 2003