PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 4450
AWARD NO. 16
NMB CASE NO. 16
UNION CASE NO. lll-W
COMPANY CASE NO. 9104141
PARTIES TO TEE DISPUTE:
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
(Western Region)
- and BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Engineer V. Weber for 54 miles runaround as shown on trip
report #48, dated April 7, 1991.
OPINION OF BOARD:
The facts in this case are not disputed.
(Claimant)
is a
Engineer V. Weber
"post 1985" or "new hire" Engineer,
subject to the terms of Article IV,
§
and thus
5 of the 1986 BLE arbitrated
National Agreement, which eliminates "duplicate time payments" for
Engineers hired after November I, 1985.
On April 7, 1991, Claimant.Weber was working the RE58 Pool,
operating freight service between horne terminal of Los Angeles and
Yermo, California.
According to Claimant's trip report, he
wa~
called and reported for duty at 8:00 p.m. but did not depart the
terminal until 11: 20 p.m.
after
Claimant,
Claimant.
departed
In the meantime, Engineer Henley, called
Los
Angeles
Terminal
ahead
of
the
Based upon those undisputed facts, Engineer Weber filed
a claim for a Rule 111 runaround.
The Rule reads as follows:
AWARD NO. 16
NMB CASE NO. 16
UNION CASE NO. 111-W
COMPANY CASE NO. 9104141
2
Rule 111 . RUNAROUNDS. An engineer standing first-out and not called in turn will be
allowed 50 miles and hold his turn. Under this rule, engineers in the same class of
service and having the same route will depart from their terminal in their first-in first-out
order. An engineer called for freight service is not runaround by an engineer called for
yard or passenger service, or vice versa, nor is an engineer called for freight service
runaround by another engineer called for freight service where they are not called to
operate over the same route.
EXAMPLES
1.
'A' called in freight service out of Salt Lake City for Milford via Provo. '8' called
in freight service out of Salt Lake City for Milford via Tintic, '8' departs from Salt Lake
City ahead of 'A' not runaround.
2.
'A' called in freight service out of Los Angeles for Anaheim. 'B' called in freight
serive out of Los Angeles for San Pedro. 'C' called in freight service out of Los Angeles
for Yermo. C' departs ahead of A' and 'B'. B' departs ahead of 'A'. A' and B' are
not runaround.
I
I
I
I
I
3.
'A' called in freight service out of Los Angeles for Yermo. 'B' called in freight
service out of Los Angeles for San Bernardino turn. '8' departs ahead of 'A'. 'A' is
runaround and is entitled to 50 miles.
Carrier denied the Rule 11 runaround claim on grounds that it
constituted a "duplicate time payment" which was not applicable to
a "new hire" Engineer like Claimant.
The Agreement language upon
which Carrier relies is found in Article IV,
§
5 of the 1986 BLE-
arbitrated National Agreement:
Section 5 - Duplicate Time Payments
(al Duplicate time payments, including arbitraries and special allowances that
are expressed in time or miles or fixed amounts of money, shall not apply to employees
whose seniority in engine or train service is established on or after November 1, 1985.
(bl Duplicate time payments, including arbitraries and special allowances that
are expressed in time or miles or fixed amounts of money, not eliminated by this
Agreement shall not be subject to general, cost-of-Iiving or other forms of wage
increases.
For all practical purposes, the foregoing provisions of the
1986 BIE-arbitrated National Agreement are identical with those of
the October 31,
1985
UTO National
Mediation Agreement.
The
AWARD NO. 16
NMB CASE NO. 16
UNION CASE NO. 111-W
COMPANY CASE NO. 9104141
3
duplicate time payment provisions of the latter agreement were the
subject of a determination by the Joint Interpretation Committee on
March
20,
1987
Arbitrators).
(Richard
R.
Kasher
and
Robert
E.
Peterson,
In arguing their respective positions in the present
case, both Carrier and the BLE rely upon that j oint interpretation,
which reads in pertinent part as follows:
QUESTIONS AT ISSUE:
ARTICLE IV· PAY RULES:
"3. Are runaround payments, allowed under previous agreements to employees
on duty and under pay, considered frozen or eliminated as duplicate time payments
under Section 5?"
FINDINGS:
The terminology, "duplicate time payments," as contained in Section 5 of Article IV,
must be interpreted to mean the twofold or double payment to an employee for a like
period of time. We do not believe that runaround payments fall within such definition.
Runaround payments generally represent penalty, rather than duplicate time payment.
They usually involve situations which have caused an employee to sustain a loss of
compensation or time as the result of a carrier having permitted or found need to have
other than the employee who stood for an assignment work a job. The penalty
payment takes in to consideration the impact a runaround may have on an employee's
further standing for work at the location where the runaround occurs as well as at
other locations where, as a consequence of a runaround, the affected employee may
lose additional compensation or time as the result of other employees thereafter
standing for work out of such locations ahead of the affected employee.
Therefore, a runaround payment is properly considered a penalty and not a duplicate
payments subject to Section 5 of Article IV.
AWARD:
The Question at Issue is answered in the negative.
Under the plain ambiguous and unqualified language of the
Joint Interpretation Committee Findings, the present claim must be
sustained.
Carrier
seeks
to
avoid
application
of
that
interpretation to the present fact pattern on grounds that Claimant
AWARD NO. 16
NMB CASE NO. 16
UNION CASE NO. 111-W
COMPANY CASE NO. 9104141
4
Weber was subject to a "terminal runaround" rather than a "board
call runaround."
consideration
in
It is noted that this distinction was taken into
another
case
involving
a
different
issue,
different contract language and a binding past practice, none of
which have any relevance to the present matter.
E. Eischen).
See PLB42 83.1.8 (D.
In the present case, however, the Findings of the
Joint: Interpretation Committee make no such distinction.
Findings of the JIC are unequivocal and unqualified:
runaround payment
is properly considered a
The
II
a
penal ty and not a
duplicate payment subject to Section 5 of Article rv."
AWARD NO. 16
NMB CASE NO. 16
UNION CASE NO. 111-W
COMPANY CASE NO. 9104141
5
AWARD
1)
Claim sustained.
2)
Carrier shall
imp~ement
this decision within thirty (30)
days of its execution by a majority of the Board.
-"'--- 2:Edwar: ~ ;ah':.7
Dated at Ithaca, New York on January 4, 1994
Union Member
Company Member
Dated at _O=-M:.--...iiao-on
10 I \q I ~LL
(-t
r
_
_