U N I T E D T R A N S P 0 R T A T I 0 N U N I 0 N
N A T I 0 N A L A G R E E M E N T
J A N U A R Y 2 7 1 9 7 2
V E R I F I E D A G R E E D - U P 0 N
Q U E S T I 0 N S A N D A N S W E R S
UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION
R&S DEPARTMENT
April 1, 1984
ARTICLE I - WAGE INCREASES
Q-1: Should the differential
between a yard conductor
and a car retarder
operator be increased by the
percentages provided for in the
January 27,
1972 Agreement?
A-1: It was our understanding
that the intended
application of the provi-
sions of Article I(e) of the BRT
Agreement of November 7, 1966 was
that
the differential paid car retarder
operators should be
added to the
basic rate, thereby establishing a
new basic rate to which
should have
been added the five percent increase effective August 12, 1966. -
It is our understanding that the
percentage wage increases
provided for
in the January 27, i972
Agreement should be
similarly applied; i.e.,
such increases should be applied to
the basic rate, including the differ-
ential as previously increased, of car retarder operators.
ARTICLE III - VACATIONS
Section 1 (k)
Q-1: Is an employee returning
from military service
entitled to receive a
vacation in the year of his return.
A-1: Article III, Section 1(k),
provides that the number
of days spent in
military service in the calendar
year preceding his return
to railroad
service may be used for qualifying
purposes. Such military
service can
be counted separately for qualifying
purposes in the event
he had no
compensated railroad service in the
preceding calendar year or if
he had
less compensated railroad service
in the preceding
calendar year than
necessary for qualifying purposes he
could combine the
military service
with such compensated railroad
service as he did
have for qualifying
purposes. In the event the
employee returns to
railroad service too
late to take the full vacation
for which he would qualify, he
is enti-
tled only to the number of available days remaining in the year.
ARTICLE VI - SWITCHING LIMITS
Q-1: Is it correct to assume
that under the UTU
Agreement roadmen may not
serve new industries that are being served by yard crews?
A-1: Section 2 of Article VI provides -
"Where, after the effective dates
of the 1951 and
1952 Agree-
ments, an industry locates
outside of switching
limits at points
where yard crews are employed, the
carrier may provide switching ser-
vice to such industries with
yardmen without additional
compensation
or penalties therefor to yard or
road men, provided the switches gov-
erning movements from the main track
to the track or tracks serving
such industries are located at a
point not to exceed four miles from
the switching limits in effect as
of the date of
this Agreement.
Other industries located between such
switching limits and
such new
industries may also be served by
yardmen without additional compensa-
tion or penalties therefor to road
or yard men. Where rules
require
that yard limits and switching
limits be the same, the
yard limit
board may be moved for operating
purposes but switching limits shall
remain unchanged unless and until
changed in accordance
with rules
governing changes in switching limits."
2
Accordingly, the same latitude for
serving the defined industries
with
road crews or yard crews that obtained
under the BRT May 25, 1951 Agree-
ment, and the BLF&E and ORC&B
May 23, 1952 Agreements
continues under
this expansion of the 1951-1952 Agreement
provisions.
In this connec-
tion, the decisions rendered in Case No.
BRT-65-W of the Article 14 Com-
mittee of-the BRT May 25, 1951
Agreement (which was rendered
without a
neutral) and in Case BLF&E-24-W, ORC&B-16-W
under the BLF&E and ORC&B
May 23, 1952 Agreements make it
clear that the railroads
may change
their services for such industries
between road and yard crews provided
that the service is not indiscriminately
alternated. New
or existing
industries being served by yard
crews shall not simultaneously be served
by road crews unless otherwise permitted under existing agreements.
Q-2: Section 2 of
Article VI reads, in part
"Section 2. Where, after the
effective dates of the
1951 and 1952
Agreements, an industry locates outside
of switching limits at points
where yard crews are employed, the
carrier may provide switching ser-
vice to "such industries with
yardmen without additional
compensation
or penalties therefor to yard or
road men, provided the switches gov-
erning movements from the main track
to the track or tracks serving
such industries are located at a
point not to exceed four miles from
the switching limits in effect as of the date of this Agreement.
* * *." (Underscoring added)
Does the underscored portion of this
provision mean the location of the
switching limits in effect as of January 27, 1972?
A-2: Yes.
Q-3:
In the application of Article VI,
Section 2, is the carrier in provid-
ing switching service to a new
industry limited to four miles
of the
switching limits in effect as of January 27, 1972?
A-3:
Yes. If the carrier, as the
result of the 1951 and 1952
Agreements is
now utilizing this rule at a
point, they cannot request an
additional
four miles. If the carrier has not
utilized this rule at a point, they
may provide switching service to an
industry which has located outside
of the switching limits since the
1951 and 1952 Agreements, with
yard
crews up to four miles from
the switching limits in
effect as of
January 27, 1972.
Q-4:
When a "new" industry is
being served by yard crews,
must all "old"
industries be also served by yard crews?
A-4: It
is our understanding that an
election by a carrier to serve
a "new"
industry by yard crews does not obligate
the carrier to serve any or all
"old" industries by yard crews.
3
ARTICLE VII - INTERCHANGE
Q-1: Under existing rules, road
crews may not be required
to handle their
caboose when their train has been
yarded. Does the agreement permit
the
UTU members of a crew to
"runaround" a train delivered to
another car-
rier and remove its caboose to handle back to the crew's tie up point?
A-1: It is our understanding
that where a road crew is
required, under Sec-
tion 1, to deliver a solid train to
a connecting carrier, Section 2 per-
mits the carrier to require the
road crew to remove its
caboose and
return it to its tie up point.
Q-2: Is it permissible to require a
crew to double with more cars
than neces-
slry for the explicit purpose of
getting all cars with a common
destina-
tion in one track when the initial
track will not accommodate the entire
interchange cut?
A-2: The answer is "yes"
provided that the number of cars
being interchanged
exceeds the capacity of the first
track used. Section 4
provides that
when the number of cars being
interchanged exceeds the capacity
of the
first track used it is-not necessary
that any one interchange track
be
filled to capacity. However, Section
4 also stipulates that the
minimum
number of tracks necessary to hold
the interchange will be used
and if
the number of cars being
interchanged does not exceed
the capacity of
the first track used, you would be restricted to that track.
Q-3: Under the "minimum number
of tracks" concept is it
permissible to dou-
ble excess cars from a track
which would have accommodated
the entire
cut to a track which won't accommodate the entire cut?
A-3: No. (See Answer to Question #2 above.)
Q-4: On a day when Carrier
"A" has no interchange cars
for Carrier "B" but
nevertheless has a "pull-back"
arrangement with Carrier
"B", may the
Carrier "A" crew be required
to go "light" to Carrier
"B" in order to
pull-back cars for Carrier "A"?
A-4: It is our understanding
that the purpose of Section
5 was to remove
restrictions contained in any
existing rules under
which the carriers
were required to run
interchange crews "light"
in either direction.
Section 5 does not preclude a
carrier from requiring an interchange crew
to run light in a situation such as you describe.
Q-5: Does the term
"connecting carrier" as
used in this section
include
switching or terminal companies?
A-5: Yes.
Q-6: Does
Article VII, Section 1,
contemplate that road
crews engaged in
solid train movements will have
their on and off duty points
changed by
reason of such movements?
A-6: No.
Existing rules or practices
concerning the designation
of on and
off duty points are not changed by Article VII, Section 1.
Q-7: Does Article
VII contemplate the elimination
or modification of initial
and final terminal delay rules?
A-7: No.
Q-8: Under
Article VII, Section 1, may road
crews be required to go beyond
the point where yard crews effect interchange with a connecting carrier?
A-8: Such
movements must be confined to tracks
on which the carrier has the
right to operate with road, yard or transfer crews.
* * * * ;k * * * * *
Q-9: Where
prior to the January 27, 1972
Agreement a carrier
yarded their
trains in the yard of a
terminal company and the terminal
company per-
formed all necessary yard service
including interchange with
connecting
carriers, does Article VII, Section
1, now permit such carrier to
oper-
ate through the terminal company's
yard and effect the interchange
of a
solid over-the-road train to a
connecting carrier with
its own road
crews?
A-9: Yes,
assuming a carrier has trackage
rights through a terminal
company
yard to an interchange point of a connecting carrier.
Q-10: May a
road crew making a delivery of
a solid over-the-road train to a
connecting carrier be required to
return cars from the
connecting car-
rier to their own yard?
A-10: No.
Q-11: What do
the words "close proximity" mean
as used in Article VII, Sec-
tion 3?
A-11: As being next to or
very near the existing interchange track or tracks.
5
Q-12: The first paragraph of Section 5 of Article VII reads -
"Crews used in interchange
service may be required
to handle
interchange to and from a foreign
carrier without being required
to
run 'light' in either direction."
Does this mean yard, belt line and/or transfer crews?
A-12: Yes.
Q-13: Does the language
"over-the-road" and "solid
trains" mean that trains
must consist of cars all destined
for a connecting carrier and
operated
by the delivering carrier from
terminal to terminal intact in
order to
permit its delivery to a connecting carrier?
A-13: No. The
carrier's right to make
normal pick-ups and
set-outs at
intermediate points is not affected by Section 1 of
Article
VII.
The
language "over-the-road" and
"solid trains" means
that an over-the-road
train must be a "solid train" in
the movement performed by the road
crew
within the terminal where its
receipt from or delivery to
a connecting
carrier is effected. However,
a carrier may not
bring an otherwise
unqualified train within the application
of Section I by making a
set-
out or set-outs forthat sole purpose
immediately prior to entering such
terminal.
ARTICLE VIII - USE OF COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS
Q-1: On a carrier an agreement
prohibited train crews from being
required to
call train dispatchers on the
radio-telephone in connection
with train
movements. Is this restriction eliminated?
A-1: Yes.
Q-2: On this carrier, yard
transfer crews, in
addition to being equipped
with small hand sets, are equipped
with radio pack sets
weighing in
excess of three pounds.
These sets are hand carried to
and from the
caboose where they normally remain during
a tour of duty for use in end-
to-end communications - communications
which cannot be
adequately han-
dled by the smaller radios. Would
these pack sets be
considered per-
missible under the Agreement?
A-2: If, as you have
indicated, the radio pack sets
in question (although
hand-carried to and from the
cabooses at the beginning and
end of the
tour of duty) are not used in
a "portable" sense by the
yard transfer
crews during their tour of duty,
it is our understanding that their
use
would be permissible under the provisions of Article VIII.
6
Q-3: By
agreement on this carrier, conductors
are paid an arbitrary of one
hour at the straight time rate
for the class of service in
which they
are engaged for taking train orders
or messages over the telephone. Is
this arbitrary eliminated by Article VIII?
A-3: No.
The only arbitraries eliminated as a
result of Article VIII
are
stated in Section 2 which are for the
carrying and/or use of radio equip-
ment.
ARTICLE IX - ROAD-YARD MOVEMENTs
Q-1: Under
carrier's existing rules outbound road
crews may be required to
make more than one pick-up in
yards within their initial terminal other
than that from which they took
their train. If a road crew
makes more
than one pick-up at its initial
terminal, is the first pick-up
subject
to the new rules and subsequent pick-ups
subject to the old rules (which
pay an arbitrary under many
circumstances) or does the
fact that the
crew made more than one pick-up at the
initial terminal remove it entire-
ly from coverage under the new rules?
A-1: As
indicated in Section 2 of Article
IX, the provisions of Section
1
thereof are not intended to impose
restrictions with respect to any oper-
ation Where restrictions Vid not
exist prior to the date of the
agree-
ment. Accordingly, the existing rules
referred to under which the
road
crews may be required to make
more than one pick-up in
yards within
their initial terminal other than
that from which they took their
train
are not affected by the provisions of Article IX.
It is our understanding that, in
a situation where a road
crew makes
more than one pick-up at its
initial terminal, the first pick-up
would
be subject to the provisions of
Section 1 of Article IX, i.e.,
without
additional compensation and without
penalty payments to yard crews, hos-
Hers, etc., and that subsequent
pick-ups would be subject
to existing
local rules.
Q-2: Is
it permissible under the Agreement
for an inbound crew to make
its
one set-out at the final terminal
on a siding or an
industrial track
(including leads or industry yards)?
A-2: Yes,
provided the siding or an
industrial track (including
leads or
industry yards) is within another yard in the final terminal.
Q-3: Is it
permissible to require a crew to
double with more cars than neces-
sary for the explicit purpose of getting
all cars with a common destina-
tion into the same track in the
course of yarding a train or
making a
set-out when the first track used will not hold the train or set-out?
A-3: Yes.
Section 1 of Article IX provides
that where it is
necessary to
use two or more tracks to hold a train it
is not required that any track
be filled to capacity. Section 1
contemplates, however, that the
mini-
mum number of tracks which could hold the cars will be used.
7
Q-4: Does the phrase
"coupled and connected in
multiple," as used in Section
1 include units which are coupled
and connected in multiple but
which
are incapable of
supplying additional tractive
power, i.e., "dead"
units?
A-4: It is our
understanding that the
phrase in question would
include
"dead" units.
-k
Q-5: It is our
understanding that the provisions of
Section I will modify
the application of an existing local
rule which provides for an engine
exchange allowance to the extent
that a road freight crew
required to
exchange their engine at a point
where yard crews are employed will
no
longer be entitled to such allowance. Is this understanding
correct?
A-5: Yes.
Q-6: Under Section 1 will
it be permissible to require a
road freight crew
to switch a car out from their own train
which was found to be defective
sometime after the train had been made
up by a yard crew but which
was
known to exist at the time the road crew was brought on duty?
A-6: Yes.
Q-7: We have several points
where yard crews are employed where
other rail-
roads deliver trains to us on
our tracks. Presently,
when defective
cars are discovered, in one of these
trains, we have a yard crew remove
them. Will we now be permitted
to have our road freight crews
switch
defective cars out from such trains?
A-7: Yes.
Q-8: Section 1 provides that a road
freight crew may be required to
"pick up
and/or set out at each
intermediate point between
terminals" without
additional compensation. Are we to
understand that this modifies exist-
ing conversion rules, i.e., stops
made at points where yard
crews are
employed to pick up and/or set
out will no longer be counted
in the
application of these rules?
A-8: No. Switching allowances,
arbitraries and/or penalty
payments formerly
allowed for this service are
the types of
"additional compensation"
which are eliminated; however, existing
conversion rules are not modi-
fied or set aside by the provisions in.question.
8
Q-9: Does
the "additional
compensation" referred to
in Article IX affect
initial and final terminal delay and conversion rules?
A-9:
No. The "additional
compensation" referred to is
intended to eliminate
switching penalties where yard crews are employed.
Q-10: What
effect do the provisions of Article
IX have on the nonrestrictive
provisions of Article V of the
June 25, 1964 Operating Employees'
Agree-
ment?
A-10: It is
our understanding that, under the
first sentence of Section 2 of
Article IX of the Agreement -
"The foregoing is
not intended to
impose restrictions with
respect to any operation where
restrictions did not
exist prior to
the date of this Agreement.
the flexibility afforded the carrier
under the provisions of
Article V
of the June 25, 1964 Agreement clearly is retained.
Q-11: Does
Article IX eliminate engine
change agreement arbitraries applica-
ble to crews assigned to yard and transfer service?
A-11: No.
Article IX is applicable only
to road freight crews
at points
where yard crews are employed. It
does, however, provide that
the work
described therein may be performed
by road freight crews
"without pen-
alty payments to yard crews, hostlers, etc."
ARTICLE X 7 COMBINING ROAD AND YARD
SENIORITY
Q-1: It
has been held in several awards
of special and public law
boards of
adjustment that Article V, Section
1, of the June
25, 1964 National
Agreement only has applicability
on properties where
yardmen are con-
fined to point seniority. If,
pursuant to Article X of
the UTU Agree-
ment, we were now to combine
our several point
seniority rosters for
yardmen with our seniority roster
for trainmen would Article
V, Section
1, no longer be applicable on this property?
A-1: It
is our understanding
that the provisions of
Article V of the
June 25, 1964 Agreement will not
be affected by application of
Article X
of the UTU Agreement.
ARTICLE XI - EXPENSES AWAY FROM
HOME
Q-1: It is
our understanding that Section I
amends both Sections I and
2 of
Article II of the June 25,
1964 National Agreement. Is
this understand-
ing correct?
A-1: Yes.
9
Q-2: Assuming extra men
will be entitled to meal allowances
as well as lodg-
ing under Section 1, will an extra man
also be entitled to an additional
meal allowance each time he is held for
more than four hours following a
tour of duty at an outlying point for another tour of duty?
A-2: It is the intent of
Section I to provide a meal
allowance, as well as
lodging, to extra employees who meet
the 30-mile criteria set forth in
subparagraph (a) thereof in situations
where they are tied-up
at the
outlying point for four hours or more (not
under pay).
Such extra
employees also would be eligible for
an additional meal allowance
and
lodging when held at such location for
each tie-up of four hours or more
after each additional tour of duty performed at that location.
Q-3: Is an extra man who is
sent to an outlying point and
is held more than
four hours in advance of the time he
is needed to fill a vacancy enti-
tled to lodging or a meal allowance?
A-3: He is entitled to
a meal allowance but not to a
lodging allowance for
such period.
-k
Q-4: Is an extra man
who is relieved from duty at
an outlying point but
deadhead trip to his home terminal
does not start for more
than four
hours after he is released entitled to lodging or a meal allowance
A-4: He is entitled to
a meal allowance but not
to a lodging allowance
unless held for an additional tour of duty.
Q-5: An extra board at
"A" is, when exhausted,
supplemented by extra men
sent to "A" from "B" which
is more than thirty miles from
"A". Are such
men entitled to expenses while at "A"?
A-5: No.
Q-6: How is the note in
Article II of the June 25,
1964 National Agreement
affected by this amendment to Article II?
A-6: The provisions of Article
XI of the UTU Agreement are
applicable inso-
far as an extra employee's tie-up
at an outlying point as
defined in
Section 1 (a) is concerned, and
the Note under Article
II of the
June 25, 1964 Agreement which provides --
"For the purposes of Sections 1
and 2 of this Article II, extra
board employees shall be provided
with lodgings and meal allowance in
accordance with the rule governing
the granting of such allowance to
the crew they join; that is, the
designated home terminal will be the
designated terminal of the crew assignment.11
would be applicable when the crew
which the extra employee
joins is
tied up at a terminal other
than the designated home terminal
of the
crew he joins for four hours or more.
10
Q-7:
Is the Carriervs understanding
correct that this
provision means that
when train, engine or yard service
employees are called from
an extra
board source, and used to fill
vacancies at outlying points, these vacan-
cies at outlying points referred to
are road service vacancies
and not
yard service vacancies?
A-7:
No. It was the intent that
this Article apply to
extra men filling
vacancies in yard service as well as in road service.
Q-8: Are
such road service vacancies at
outlying points road
service vacan-
cies other than short turnaround passenger (suburban) vacancies?
A-8: Yes.
Q-9:
It is our understanding that an
employee will not be entitled
to more
than two meal allowances under
Article II, as amended
by Article XI,
Section 2, when tied up at an
away from home terminal
(outlying point)
in excess of 12 hours. Is this understanding correct?
A-9:
Yes. However, if after being tied
up twelve hours or more
he performs
an additional tour of duty and is
again tied up for twelve hours
or more
at such outlying point, he would
again be eligible for
the two $2.00
meal allowances; i.e., $2.00 for the
first four hours and $2.00 for
the
additional eight hours so held.
Q-10: In
connection with Article XI, Section l(a),
the carrier does not main-
tain passenger transportation and
employees are deadheaded
to outlying
points by bus or are paid
mileage for using their
personal automobile.
Under these circumstances how should
the 30 miles provision
be calcu-
lated?
A-10: On the basis of rail
mileage.
ARTICLE Xi[ - INTERDWISIONAL
SERVICE
Q-1:
Section l(a) refers to letters of
intent and places a
restriction on
the number of letters of intent
that may be outstanding at any
particu-
lar time. It also provides that
each letter of intent
may involve no
more than three proposed
operations. What is the
intended application
of the phrase "proposed operations"?
A-1: All
passenger service is a "proposed
operation" and all
freight service
is a "proposed operation".
1 1
Q-2: We contemplate the
initiation of several runs
under this rule. Needs
of the service include the right to
have crews pick up, set out and/or
do switching at any point between
terminals of the runs, without restric-
tion when operating over another seniority district.
Does Article XII preclude the carrier
from proposing an operation permit-
ting crews in the interdivisional
service to perform any necessary
work
enroute at any intermediate point between terminals?
A-2: Article XII of the
Agreement merely sets forth
the procedures under
which the individual
carriers may establish
interdivisional service.
There is nothing contained in
such provisions which
circumscribes the
specific work which may be required
of crews assigned to such runs when
they are established, nor is there
anything contained therein which spe-
cifically restricts the performance of
any particular service
by such
crews. In this connection, it is
our understanding that the
provisions
of Article IX - Road-Yard Movements
- would be fully applicable insofar
as road freight crews assigned to
interdivisional runs established under
the procedures of Article XII are concerned.
Q-3: What is a
"separate proposed operation"?
For example, trains presently
operate between Champaign,
Illinois, and Fulton,
Kentucky with crew
changes at Bluford. We would like
to run these trains
in interdivi-
sional service by eliminating the
crew change at Bluford.
Under Para-
graph (a) would such an operation in a
letter of intent be considered as
one "separate proposed operation"
despite the fact there are
several (5
or 6) runs involved?
A-3: It is our understanding
that a single letter of intent
could be served
to establish interdivisional
service between Champaign,
Illinois and
Fulton, Kentucky - eliminating the present
crew change at Bluford - and,
despite the fact that several runs
are involved, this would constitute
one "separate proposed operation".
Q-3: (CONTINUED)
If so, could trains now operated
between Champaign and
Paducah (with
crew changes at Bluford) be considered
within the letter of intent as a
part of the Champaign-Fulton proposed
operation since the intent of both
the Champaign-Fulton operation and the
Champaign-Paducah operation is to
eliminate Bluford as a crew change point?
A-3: It is our
understanding that
the proposed
establishment of
interdivisional service between Champaign, Illinois and Paducah
could be
included in the letter of intent covering the proposed
establishment
of
interdivisional service between
Champaign, Illinois and
Fulton, Ken-
tucky; however, although Bluford would
be eliminated as a crew
change
point in both cases, it is our
further understanding that
this would
constitute two "separate proposed operations".
12
Q-3:
(CONTINUED)
We presently have four trains
operating from Chicago to
Council Bluffs
with crew change points at Freeport,
Waterloo, and Fort Dodge. If
the
Carrier desired to eliminate two of
the three crew change
points for
these trains would this be
considered a single "separate
proposed opera-
tion"? If not, how many "single
proposed operations" would it be
consid-
ered?
A-3:
It is our view that a
determination of this nature is
contingent upon
which two of the three crew change
points the carrier proposes to elimi-
nate. For example, if Freeport
and Waterloo or Waterloo and Fort
Dodge
are the two crew change points
the carrier desires to eliminate, it
is
our understanding that either could
be accomplished by serving a letter
of intent and be considered as
a single "separate proposed
operation".
In the first instance the proposed
interdivisional service to be estab-
lished would be Chicago to Fort Dodge and
in the second case it would be
Freeport to Council Bluffs. Conversely,
if the two crew change
points
the carrier desires to eliminate are
Freeport and Fort Dodge, it is our
understanding that two "separate
proposed operations" would be
involved,
i.e., one establishing interdivisional
service from Chicago to
Waterloo
(with Freeport being eliminated as a
crew.change point) and the
other
from Waterloo to Council Bluffs
(with Fort Dodge being eliminated
as a
crew change point).
Q-4:
Under the present operation a crew
with home terminal at A
operates a
freight train to B, 77 miles.
A second crew with home
terminal at B
operates the same train to C,
90 miles. If carrier serves notice
under
Article XII of intent to establish
an interdivisional run from A through
B to C with the crew from terminal A,
would this be considered as requir-
ing notice under Section 1 or Section 2?
A-4:
The procedure; set forth in Section
2 of Article XII would be control-
ling insofar as the proposed run is concerned.
Q-5:
Terminal A is intermediate to
terminals B and C. Pool crews
with home
terminal at A handle trains between B and
A, and crews from another pool
with home terminal at A handle
trains between A and C,
with a crew
change at A. Under the
Mediation Agreement could
the carrier serve
notice of intent to operate certain
trains from B to C
through the
crew's home terminal at A?
A-5: Yes, under
the procedures set forth in Section 2 of Article XII.
13
Q-6: Terminal A is
intermediate to terminals B and C.
Pool crews with home
terminal at A handle trains between B and
A, and crews from another pool
with home terminal at A handle trains
between A and C. Under the Media-
tion Agreement, could the carrier serve
notice of intent to operate cer-
tain trains from C to B and return
to C, through terminal A, with crews
having C as a home terminal?
This would involve crews at
terminal C
operating onto another seniority district.
A-6: Yes, under the procedures set forth in Section 2
of Article XII.
Q-7: Is it permissible
for crews assigned
to interdivisional
and
interseniority district runs established
under the 1-27-72 Agreement to
make pick-ups and set-offs and
perform station switching on that portion
of the run which is off their seniority district?
A-7: Article XII of the
Agreement sets forth the procedures
under which the
individual carriers may establish interdivisional
service. It
is our
understanding that the provisions of
Article IX - Road-Yard Movements -
would be fully applicable insofar
as road freight crews
assigned to
interdivisional runs established under the
procedures of Article XII are
concerned.
ARTICLE >011 - PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES
Q-1: Does the time limit on
claims rule have application
with respect to
disputes or controversies referred to in Section 8 of Article XIII?
A-1: NO.
NATIONAL RAILWAY LABOR CONFERENCE
November 11, 1975
CIRCUI,AR.NO. 546-29-4-2
TO MEMBER ROADS:
It has come to our attention that a discrepancy exists in cer-
tain situations in so far as application of the Expenses Away From Home
provi-
sions contained in Article VII of the BLE Agreement dated I-lay 13,
1971 and
Article XI (the corresponding provisions) of the UTU
Agreement dated January
27, 1972 are concerned.
The discrepancy in application pertains to providing
lodging
to extra men at outlying points and actually has been caused by two
different
agreed-upon interpretations of identical language in the two
separate agree-
ments,
With our Circular No. 546-29-4-1, dated May 12, 1972,
we at-
tached a compilation of questions and answers with respect
to application of
certain provisions of the UTU January 27, 1972 Agreement
which were jointly
approved by the United Transportation Union and the National Carriers'
Confer-
ence Committee. Included in this compilation were ten questions
(Pages 11-13)
dealing with the provisions of Article XI - Expenses Away From Home.
Although a similar compilation of questions and answers regard-
ing application of the various provisions of the BLE May 13,
1971 Agreement
was not jointly approved, certain questions involving application of the
pro-
visions of Article VII - Expenses Away From Rome were the
subject of corre-
spondence between this office and the BLE Grand Lodge and such
correspondence,
which resulted in the joint approval of answers to several
questions of this
nature, is the origin of the discrepancy in application.
The differences in the agreed-upon application of the
provi-
sions in question can best be illustrated by comparing the
following three
sets of circumstances under which it has been agreed that
extra employees at
outlying points (having met the required criteria) would be
entitled to BOTH
meal and lodging allowances in application of Article VII of the May 13,
1971
BLE Agreement with three specific questions and answers contained in the
com-
pilation jointly approved by the UTU and the National
Carriers' Conference
Committee:
2
BLE
The payment of both meal and lodging allowances
would be required to extra employees at outlying points (hav-
ing met the required criteria) under the following circum-
stances:
1. When tied up four (4) hours or more at an
outlying point(s) prior to going on duty
for the first tour of duty, except that
the lodging benefits apply under these cir-
cumstances, only when the extra employee is
held at the outlying point for more than one
(1) tour of duty.
2. When tied up four (4) hours or more between
each tour of duty at the outlying point(s).
3. then held four (4) hours or more, after com-
pleting the last tour of duty at the outlying
point(s), before commencing return trip to
home terminal (point of supply for extra men).
UTU
QUESTION (Compare with BLE
Circumstance
Is an extra man who is sent to an outlying point
and is held more than four hours in advance of
the time he is needed to fill a vacancy entitled
to lodging or a meal allowance?
ANSWER
He is entitled to a meal allowance but not to a
lodging allowance for such period.
QUESTION #2 - (Compare with BLE Circumstance 52)
Assuming extra men will be entitled to meal allow-
ances as well as lodging under Section 1, will an
extra man also be entitled to an additional meal
allowance each time he is held for more than four
hours following a tour of duty at an outlying
point for another tour of duty?
ANSWER
It is the intent of Section 1 to provide a meal
allowance, as well as lodging, to extra employees
who meet the 30-mile criteria set forth in sub-
paragraph (a) thereof in situations where they
are tied-up at the outlying point for four hours
or more (not under pay). Such extra employees
- 3 -
also would be eligible for an additional meal
allowance and lodging when held at such location
for each tie-up of four hours or more after each
additional tour of duty performed at that loca-
tion.
OUESTTON #4 - (Comnare with BLE Circumstance 13)
Is an extra man who is relieved from duty at an
outlying point but deadhead trip to his home ter-
minal does not start for more than four hours
after he is released entitled to lodging or a
meal allowance?
ANTS1,,IER
He is entitled to a meal allowance but not to a
lodging allowance unless held for an additional
tour of duty.
This entire matter has been considered by the National Car-
riers'
Conference Committee and, in the interest of uniformity of application
of
identical language in the two separate agreements, it has been concluded
that
the UTU questions outlined above should be given the same application as
agreed to with the BLE. We have discussed this situation and
agreed upon such
application with Grand Lodge representatives of the UTU with the
definite
understanding that no retroactive aDDlication either is intended or
required.
Yours truly,
J, F, GRIFFIN
Director of Labor Relations
C 0 M P A R I S 0 N
ARTICLE IX - ROAD-YARD MOVEMENTS, AGREEMENT OF JANUARY 27, 1972
AND
ARTICLE X - ROAD-YARD MOEVEIENTS, AGREEMENT OF AUGUST 25, 1978
THE AGREEMENT OF JANUARY 27, 1972
ARTICLE IX - ROAD-YARD MOVEMENTS
Section 1. Road freight crews
may be required at any point where yard crews
are employed to do any of the
following as part of the road trip, paid for as
such without any additional
compensation and without penalty payments to yard
crews, hostlers, etc.: one
straight pick up at another yard in the initial
terminal (in addition to picking up
train) and one straight set out at another
yard in the final terminal (in
addition to yarding the train): pick up and/or
set out at each intermediate point
between terminals; switch out defective
cars from their own trains
regardless of when discovered; handle engines to
and from train to ready track and
engine house including all units coupled and
connected in multiple; pick up and
set out cars of their trains from or to the
minimum number of tracks which
could hold the cars provided, however, that
where it is necessary to use two or
more tracks to hold the train it is not
required that any track be filled
to capacity; and exchange engines of its own
train.
Section 2. The foregoing is not
intended to impose restrictions with
respect to any operation where
restrictions did not exist prior to the date of
this Agreement. There will be no
change in work permitted or compensation
paid to combination assignments,
such as mine runs, tabulated assignments,
etc.
This rule shall become effective 15 days after the date of this
Agreement except on such carriers
as may elect to preserve existing rules or
practices and so notify the
authorized employee representatives on or before
such effective date.
THE AGREEMENT OF AUGUST 25, 1978
ARTICLE X - ROAD-YARD MOVEMENTS
Article IX, Section 1 of the Agreement of January 27, 1972 is
amended
to read as follows:
SeMon 1 - Road freight crews may be required at any point where yard
crews
are employed to do any of the following as part of the road trip, paid
for as
such without any additional compensation and without penalty payments
to yard
crews, hostlers, etc.: one straight pick up at another location in
the ini-
tial terminal (in addition to picking up train) and one straight set out
at
another location in the final terminal (in addition to yarding the
train); one
straight pick up and/or set out at each intermediate point between
terminals;
switch out defective cars from their own trains regardless of when
discovered;
handle engines to and from train to ready track and engine house
including all
units coupled to the operating unit (units); pick up and set out cars
of their
trains from or to the minimum number of tracks which could hold the
cars pro-
vided, however that where it is necessary to use two or more tracks to
hold
the train it is not required that any track be filled to capacity; and
exchange engine of its own train.
Nothing in this Section I is intended to impose restrictions with
respect to any operation where restrictions did not exist prior to the
date of
this agreement.
This Article shall become effective fifteen (15) days after the
date
of this Agreement.
ILLUSTRATION OF RULE CHANGES
ARTICLE X - ROAD-YARD MOVEMENTS
Article IX, Section 1 of the Agreement of January 27, 1972 is amended
to read
as
follows:
Secton 1. Road freight crews may be required at any point where yard
crews are
employed to do any of the following as part of the road trip, paid for
as such
without any additional compensation and without penalty payments to yard
crews,
hostlers, etc.: one straight pick up at another location in the
initial terminal
(in
addition to picking up train) and one straight set out at another
location in
1*
the
final terminal (in addition to yarding the train); one straight pick up
2*
and/or set out at each intermediate point between terminals; switch
out defective
cars
from their own trains regardless of when discovered; handle engines to
and
from
train to ready track and engine house including all units coupled to the
3/
operating unit (units); pick up and set out cars of their trains from or
to the
Q
minimum number of tracks which could hold the cars provided, however,
that where
it is
necessary to use two or more tracks to hold the train it is not required
that
any track be filled to capacity; and exchange engine of its own train.
1* Change - "yard" to
"location"
2* Add - "one straight"
3/ Delete - "and connected in
multiple"
4* Add - "to the operating unit
(units)"
A R T I C L E X (UTU)
Road-Yard Movements
Section I
Section 1:
"Article IX, Section 1 of the
Agreement of January 27,
1972 is amended to read as follows:
Road freight crews may be required
at any point where
yard crews are employed to do any of
the following as
part of the road trip, paid for as such without
any addi-
tional compensation and without penalty payments
to yard
crews, hostlers, etc: one straight
pick up at another
location in the initial terminal (in addition
to picking
up train) and one straight set out at another
location in
the final terminal (in addition to yarding
the train);
one straight pick up and/or set out at
each intermediate
point between terminals; switch out
defective cars from
their own trains regardless of when
discovered; handle
engines to and from train to ready track and
engine house
including all units coupled
to the operating unit
(units); pick up and set out cars of their trains
from or
to the minimum number of tracks which could hold
the cars
provided, however, that where it is necessary to
use two
or more tracks to hold the train it is not
required that
any track be filled to capacity; and
exchange engine of
its own train.
Nothing in this Section 1 is intended to
impose restric-
tions with respect to any operation
where restrictions
did not exist prior to the date of this agreement."
Q-1: In what sequence may the additional one
straight pick-up at the ini-
tial terminal and the additional one
straight set-out at the final
terminal be made?
A-1: In this respect the application is the same as the former
rule.
At the initial terminal, after picking up
train and commencing out-
bound trip, the road crew may
be required to make one additional
straight pick-up at another location within the
limits of its initial
terminal in connection with its own train.
At the final terminal the road
crew may be required to make one
straight set-out at another location within
the limits of the final
terminal before the final yarding of its train.
2
Q-2: Does the
term "another location" include
another yard track in
the
yard in which the train is made up or is finally yarded?
A-2: No.
Q-3: Does
the term "another location" as
used in this Article X refer to
any other location within the present yard limits?
A-3: Yes,
provided the "Tocation" is in
an area where the road crew
has
seniority rights to work.
Q-4: Did
the language change from
"another yard" to
"another location"
allow the carrier the right to require
road crews to make one straight
pick up or set out at another
location if this requires the crew
to
operate off-district and on another seniority district?
A-4: No,
unless the carrier had the-previous
right to require such road
crews to set out or pick up at
"another yard" located off-district
and
on another seniority district.
Q-5: If
arbitraries were paid subsequent to
the January 27, 1972 Agreement
because the location where the pick ups and
set outs were made was not
"another yard" and the pick
ups and set outs are still
made in the
same spot, are the arbitraries still applicable?
A-5: If the
spot (location) as referred to above
is within the initial
and/or final terminal and the
arbitrary was paid solely
because the
spot was not "another yard", the arbitrary would no longer
apply.
Q-6: Does
"another location" as used in
this rule, include interchange to
or from another carrier when such set out and/or
pick up had not previ-
ously been the practice?
A-6: This
revision of the January 27,
1972 rule makes no
change with
respect to what cars may be picked up or
set out, interchange, or oth-
erwise. It merely substituted the
words "another location" for "anoth-
er yard".
Q-7: Under
Section 1 of Article X, does
one straight pick up at another
location in the initial terminal and one
straight pick up at an inter-
mediate point between terminals mean
that the cars must be first out
coupled together on the track on which the pick up is located?
A-7: The national
rule did not change the rules
and practices in effect on
the individual properties as to what constitutes a straight pick up.
3
Q-8: Under the road/yard provisions
of Article IX of the January
27, 1972
UTU National Agreement, as amended by
Article X of the August 25, 1978
UTU National Agreement, is it
permissible to have a road crew
make a
set-out on an interchange track in
their final terminal prior to yard-
ing their train, or make a
pick-up from an interchange track
at the
initial terminal after commencing the road trip?
A-8: Yes.
Q-9: Carrier instructions
place restrictions on
the location of certain
type cars within the train's
consist. If trains are
improperly made
up by yard crews, road crews are
instructed to switch out the cars or
rearrange the cars in order
to comply with the
restrictions. Can
these cars be considered "bad
order" under the rule so as
to require
this work of road crews without additional compensation?
A-9: Cars that need to be
placed in certain locations of the
train and are
not otherwise defective are not
considered "bad order" for
purposes of
this rule.
Q-10: Is the Carrier correct in
contending that the
amendment to Article
IX, Section 1, of the January
27, 1972 National
Agreement providing
for one straight pick up and/or
set out at intermediate points enroute
is nullified by the savings
clause contained in
Section 2 stating,
"Nothing in this section ...
imposes restrictions ... where restrictions
did not exist prior to ...
this agreement" thus permitting the
Carrier
to require road crews to perform
other than straight pick ups
and/or
set outs at intermediate points?
A-10: No. The savings clause in
Article X of the 1978
National Agreement
carried forward from Article IX, Section
1, of the 1972 National Agree-
ment was intended to preserve a
carrier's rights under local rules and
practices; however, its inclusion in
the 1978 National
Agreement was
not intended to preserve any
provisions of the 1972 National
Agreement
which were modified by the 1978 National Agreement.
|