UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION                                      Case No. 7
(EASTERN DISTRICT)                                               Award No. 7


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of Salt Lake City Conductor D. B. Thompson for an additional basic day at the through freight rate of pay account required to operate in violation of the automatic terminal release rule by performing multiple hours of service relief/dogcatching trips on March 19, 2001.

FINDINGS: This Board, upon the whole record and all of the evidence, finds that the Employees and Carrier involved in this dispute are respectively Employees and Carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as amended and that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

OPINION OF THE BOARD: The basic facts are not disputed. Claimant, Conductor D. B. Thompson, was called on March 19, 2001 at Salt lake City for an on duty time of 5:30 p.m. Claimant was told he would be taxied to Ogden to perform a "multiple dog catch". Claimant clarified if this was a "multiple dog catch" or "Zone 31" assignment. The response was "multiple dog catch."

After reporting for duty, Claimant "dog caught" two (2) trains. At 6:00 p.m. Claimant deadheaded in continuous service from Salt Lake City to Ogden (32 miles) to retrieve the first train, IAPG5-17. Claimant arrived back in Salt lake at 9:10 p.m. (32 miles). He then deadheaded in continuous service from Salt Lake City departing at 10:10 p.m. to retrieve the GSSOPX-17 at Ogden (32 miles). Claimant returned to Salt Lake City at 3:10 a.m. (32 miles and tied up at 4:05 a.m. for a total on duty time of 10 hours and 35 minutes. Claimant ran 128 actual miles.

Claimant submitted a claim to the CMS Timekeeping Bureau, claiming two 130-mile basic days account departing the Salt Lake City terminal twice during his tour of duty. Timekeeping declined one basic day of 130 miles and compensated Claimant a basic day (130 miles) $139.09 plus 2 hours and 35 minutes overtime, $67.37. On June 29, 2001 the UTU Local Chairman appealed the claim for an additional basic day. The Organization contends Claimant is entitled to the additional basic day under the provisions of automatic release UTU Rule 67 which states:

Rule 67. AUTOMATIC RELEASE. On arrival at terminals conductors and brakemen are automatically released. This not to apply to service covered by Rules 7, 31, 35, 58, 62, 64 and 65.

Indeed, Rule 67 is the central focus of the Union's case. In response, the Carrier relies on several awards between the UP and other UTU committees and between the UP and the BLE that have rejected claims that retrieving more than one train (out of time the expiration of hours of service) constitute separate trips.

The claim must be sustained. The awards relied on by the Carrier are distinguished on their face. As noted in those awards, a critical fact is those agreements did not have an automatic release rule. The applicable agreement here has an automatic release rule in title and substance. Indeed, Award 17 of PLB 4450 stated:

From every indication we have, Claimant was not called for any particular trip or run but rather was called at the outset for fly catch/dog catch service, i.e. to provide relief for a crew or crews outlawed under the Hours of Service Law. Significantly, the claim makes no reference to any call for "immediate service" subsequent to arrival at Yermo with the first outlawed train. We must conclude that the conditions of properly invoking Rule 82 were not met in this case.

It has been authoritatively determined on this property that, in the absence of contractual support under a terminal release rule, multiple dog catching trips during a single tour of duty are payable on the basis of greater of continuous time, actual mileage or a basic minimum day. hi that connection, Carrier was within its rights to rely upon the holdings in PLB NO. 5028-3 (Van Wart, 1993).

In Award 17 of PLB 4450 it was further determined Rule 82 was not an automatic release since, among other things, it required completion of the trip called for. The Board explained:

Rule 82 is not an "automatic" terminal release rule because the engineers entitlement to release thereunder is predicated not only upon arrival at a division terminal. In addition, a Rule 82 terminal release also requires the occurrence of two (2) conditions upon arrival at a division terminal: 1) completion of the assignment (a "run" or "that trip") for which the Engineer was called and 2) another call for immediate service beyond such terminal. So far as this record shows, neither of those two conditions was fulfilled in the factual scenario giving rise to the present claim.

A comparison of Rule 82 which reads

RULE 82. RELEASE AT TERMINALS. When engineers reach a division terminal, completing a run for which they have been called, it is understood their time closes for that trip, and that, in case they are again called for immediate service beyond such terminal, a new trip is begun. This is not intended to change practice of paying for doubles, and is subject to Rules 13, 26 and work train and helper service rules.

and Rule 67 shows a clear distinction.

Award 17 of PLB 4450 actually supports the Union since it is a release rule without contingencies. Moreover, the Carrier's reliance on Article IV, Section B, 2 of the UTU Salt Lake City Hub UP/SP Merger Award/Agreement effective July 1, 1997 which reads as follows:

2. Turnaround Service/Hours of Service Relief. Except as provided in (1) above, turn around service/hours of service relief at both home and away from home terminals shall be handled by extra boards, if available, prior to setting up other employees. Trainmen used for this "SERVICE" may be used for multiple trips in one tour of duty in accordance with the designated collective bargaining agreement rules. Extra boards may handle this service in all directions out of a terminal within a Hub.

is misplaced. It is misplaced because the particular collective bargaining agreement in question provides for an automatic release upon return to the terminal. The Carrier had several collective bargaining agreements to choose from for implementation and it chose one which unlike some others did contain an automatic release.


The claim is sustained.

Gil Vernon, Neutral Member

DeanHazlett, Union Member

Frank Tamisiea, Company Member

Dated this 1st day of November, 2004.