Parties Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen
to
Dispute Union Pacific Railroad Company-Eastern District
Statement of Claim: Claim of extra Conductor R. I. Buen, Denver, for 137 miles deadhead
Denver to Sterling, Nay 23, 1966; 136 miles deadhead Sterling to Denver, May 24, 1966 and
100 miles at work train rate of pay for May 23, 1966.
Findings: This case involves, among several things, the contemplation and the application to
the within facts of Article III, Section 1(a), of the National Work Rules Agreement of June 25,
1964. Said 1(a) sets forth the conditions under which Carrier must assign a conductor to an
on-track self-propelled vehicle like the burro crane here used. A main condition here involved
is the one that says such a machine must be "operating under train orders
Said language raises two questions: (1) What does the quoted phrase mean?(?) Given this
interpretative meaning, was the burro crane so operating on claim date, when carrier failed
to assign a conductor to it?
As to (1), the Board finds that said phrase contemplated that the self-propelled on-track
vehicle must be operating under a train order specifically addressed to its "boss" and directly
governing its own movements and work. It is not enough that other vehicles or trains which are
affected by the first's presence and actions are operating under train orders addressed to them
and governing their movements.
As to (2) above, the record contains no evidence that the crane on claim date had had and was
working under a train order addressed to it. It appears that the only train order governing
movements in the area on said date was the one addressed to other trains therein - the one
taking the main track between Sterling and Union out of service from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. This
order may not rightly be said to have been addressed to or to have governed the movements of
the crane on claim date.
The Organization contends that the crane must have had a train order so as to get out of
Sterling to its service location. The Board can find no evidence, however, that the crane was
in Sterling the night before claim date.
Given the answers to both of the above questions, Carrier may not be held to have violated the
1964 Agreement.
Another approach to the Agreement and to the facts herein is that used by S.B.A. No. 333 in its
Awards Nos. 120 and 123 covering another District of this Carrier and the B. of R. T.., where
the main track was also taken out of service (in those cases by placing C. T. C. signals in
stop position). That Board found that under such condition the crane was not being operated on
a main line track; and, since under the Agreement such operation is another condition that must
be met to warrant assignment of a conductor, those claims were thereby invalid.
Given the finding that the 1964 Agreement was not violated here, the other issues raised by
Carrier in its submission need no consideration.
AWARD: Claim denied.
Carroll R. Daugherty, Chairman and Neutral Member
Mr. Kenny, Carrier Member
J. H. Shepherd, Employe Member
(I dissent)
Omaha, Nebraska
July 26, l967
|