Case 17 Award 17
PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 4897
PARTIES Union Pacific Railroad Company
DISPUTE: United Transportation Union (C&T)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of Conductor M. R. Miller and Brakeman, E. R. Holley and R. L. Luebbe for 100 miles account performing service outside the 25-mile zone.
FINDINGS 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. Claimants have been assigned to the extra board at North Platte, Nebraska on February 25, 1985. On that date Claimants were called at North Platte at 10:15 A.M. to dogcatch under Rule 31. In accordance with their assignments, Claimants dogcaught Extra 2861 West at 10:50 A.M. and returned to North Platte. They then departed North Platte again to Dogcatch Extra 3780 West at the West switch at Farr, Nebraska, and then returned to North Platte and tied up at 6:55 P.M. For that day's work Claimants were allowed 100 miles, plus the 40 minutes overtime involved. However, Claimants also requested 100 miles for allegedly going outside the 25 mile zone. The 25 mile zone provisions of Rule 31 are in their proper context as follows:
Conductors and Brakemen in pool or irregular freight service may be called to make short trips and turn- arounds with the understanding that one or more turn-around trips may be started out of the same terminal and paid actual miles with a minimum of 100 miles per day, provided: (1) that that mileage of all the trips does not exceed 100 miles, (2) that the distance run from the terminal to the turning point does not exceed 25 miles.
Two problems are posed by this dispute. One deals with a definition of how the 25-mile zone is to be measured and thus Rule 31 is to be applied. The second problem concerns whether the West switch at Farr, which is at Mile Post 257.68 is within the 25-mile zone in this dispute (in relation to North Platte). Petitioner relies in part on the designated departure and arrival points found in the scheduled rules dated November 1, 1957, as well as System Timetable Number 5, which was in effect on the date of the claim. In accordance with those two documents, the Farr siding is listed as being located at Mile Post 256.5 or 26.8 miles from the departure point at North Platte. The Organization argues that it is not proper to use the West Switch at the Farr sighting as the turning point. In this case, according to the Petitioner, the Claimants were deadheaded to the lead unit of the extra, which was located at Mile Post 256.98, which is a distance of 26.3 miles from the departure point at North Platte. According to the Organization, under Rule 31, the computation of road miles begins at the departure point, not the switching limits. Petitioner believes that Carrier's method of computation, as advocated in this dispute, using extreme boundaries, would result in extending the 25-mile limitation imposed by Rule 31. Thus, the Organization concludes that the 25-mile limitation is measured from the departure point, and in this instance, Claimants performed work beyond the limits of the 25-mile zone, and thus are entitled to compensation.
Carrier states that the question of the distance run first must be dealt with respect to the terminal at North Platte. The terminal at North Platte includes all trackage between Mile Post 292 and 282.01, or almost 10 miles. However, the Carrier argues that the East switching limit marks the point of establishing the 25-mile zone. Carrier also specifies that earlier Awards on this property have made it clear that mileage within the terminal is not part of the road territory. Thus, if the mileage is not part of the road territory, it could not be part of the 25-mile zone. For that reason, the Carrier maintains that the 25-mile zone extends from the East switching limit at North Platte to the West switch at Farr or a distance of 24.33 miles. Furthermore, upon reaching the West switch at Farr, according to the Carrier, the Claimants have operated within the entire switching limits at Farr and not violate the 25-mile restrictions of Rule 31. In fact, according to Carrier, Farr Station as a whole, is within the 25-mile zone and any switching within that station could have been performed by Claimants without violation of the rule. Furthermore, according to the Carrier, the West switch at Farr (the West station limits) is the point where Extra 3780 West was located. This is precisely 24.33 miles from the East switching limits of North Platte, and well within the 25-mile zone. Station numbers are not to be used in calculating such miles, according to the Carrier. The switching limits at North Platte and the station limits at Farr, which is the West switch, are the correct measurement points that calculate the 25-mile zone.
This issue has been dealt with on this property by a number of precedential awards. In Award No. 2 of Special Board of Adjustment Number 592, Mortimer Stone stated in 1965, that the switching limits rather than the designated departure and arrival points controlled in the application of a rule dealing with a closely related issue. Thus, he stated that this should be used for the purpose of computing road mileage. Furthermore, his decision was based on settlements on the property in recognition of this principle. In addition, Public Law Board No. 164 in Award 218, in 1970, dealt with this same problem. Award No. 218 reaffirmed the conclusions reached by Special Board of Adjustment No. 592 and Award No. 2, discussed above. In addition, in Award No. 3 of Public Law Board 3736, the Board also dealt with the question of how to measure a zone (albeit a 50-mile zone in that dispute). In that Award as well, following the two earlier awards indicated, the Board held that the switching limits, rather than the designated arrival and departure points, are the recognized territorial limits which should be used in calculating the zone distance. That Board held unequivocally that the limits of a terminal are at switching limits. This Board does not find the determinations reached earlier are palpably false or erroneous. In a similar fashion, the determination here follows the earlier precedents and we agree that the distance must be measured from the switching limits of a terminal in order to make the proper determination in a case such as this.
AWARD: Claim denied.
I.M. Lieberman, Neutral-Chairman
G. A. Eickmann, Employee/Member
Scott Hinckley, Carrier Member
Omaha, Nebraska December 30, 1991