ISSUE NO. 12

Does a runaround occur when deadheading and service are combined out of the away—from—home terminal and there are rested and available engineers at such terminal?

Pertinent Agreement Provision

ARTICLE VI - DEADHEADING

“Existing rules covering deadheading are revised as follows:

Section 1 — Payment When Deadheading and Service Are

Combined

“(a) Deadheading and service may be combined in

any manner that traffic conditions require, and when

so combined employees shall be paid actual miles or

hours on a continuous time basis, with not less than a

minimum day, for the combined service and deadheading.

However, when deadheading from the away-from-home

terminal to the home terminal is combined with

service trip from such home terminal to such away—

from-home terminal and the distance between the two

terminals exceed the applicable mileage for a basic

day, the rate paid for the basic day mileage portion

of the service trip and deadhead shall be at the full

basic daily rate.”

Discussion

Prior to the May 19, 1986 Arbitrated Agreement, engineers

who deadheaded from their home terminal to their away-from—home

terminal were released (to avoid runaround claims). This dispute

concerns whether or not the Carriers may combine service with

deadheading to engineers working in pool or unassigned service

operating under a first-in and first—out basis for their runs.

More specifically, does a runaround occur when an engineer is

directed to deadhead from his home terminal to his away—from—home

terminal and then immediately performs a working trip back to his

available engineer on the Extra List or in a pool. Moreover, the

genesis of the Conrail Rule was an almost identical provision on

the former Pennsylvania Railroad. The rule, which dates back to

1928, was interpreted to allow deadheading in and out of an away—

from—home terminal regardless of whether or not engineers at the

away—from—home terminal were rested and available for service.

[See the Interpretation Issued by the Pennsylvania Railroad System

Joint Reviewing Committee Engine and Train Service Employees.]

This interpretation was followed on the former Pennsylvania and

then carried forward on the successor line, Conrail. Absent a

distinguishing interpretation (such as in Issue No. 10), this

Committee must affirm the well entrenched past practice emanating

from the railroad where the rule originated. Indeed, in agreed

upon Question and Answer No. 1 under Article VI, section i, the

parties contemplated that the new deadheading rule would be

applied in a blanket fashion. Even though the Question and Answer

addressed the problem of notice, the parties implicitly

anticipated that crews could be deadheaded in and out of away-

from-home terminals subject only to the notice requirement

despite the existence of runaround and first-in, first—out rules

on the various railroad properties. In view of the broad language

in the introductory clause to Article VI, the local runaround

rules must give way to Article VI, Section 1(a) of the Arbitratcd

National Agreement unless deadheading is separated from service.

Answer to

Issue No. 12: No.

DATED: May 16, 1988

Larry D. McFather, BLE

Charles I Hopkins, NCC

John B Laroco Neutral Member