PUBLIC LAW BOARD No. 3779
CARRIER FILE: a) 0DB-4193, b) ODB-4229
ORGANZN FILE: a) 1348-R-13,718, b) 1348-R-13,753
PARTIES UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION - C & T
TO vs.
DISPUTE: UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, NWD
STATEMENT a) Claim of Conductor J. H. Mitchell for 100 miles each day,
OF CLAIMS: December 31, 1979, January 2, 3, 4, 1980 account American
Crane working on main line between Argo and Kent without.
conductor-pilot.
b) Claim of Conductor R. G. Allen for 131 miles per day for
period January 2 through April 29, 1980 account American
Crane working on main line without a conductor-pilot
between Andover and Auburn.
FINDINGS: Upon the whole record and all the evidence, after hearing,
the Board finds that the parties herein are carrier and
employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as
amended, and that this Board is duly constituted by Agree-
ment under Public Law 89-456 and has jurisdiction of the
parties and subject matter.
On the dates of claims, a self-propelled crane operated
on the main line in CTC territory without a conductor-pilot. The Organ-
ization contends that Agreement Rule 45(a)(1) required the use of a
conductor-pilot under the circumstances; Carrier contends that a
conductor-pilot was not required under the rule.
Rule 45(a)(1) provides:
"A conductor will be employed on on-rail self-propelled
vehicles or machines when operating in main line terri-
tory, provided such machines are equipped with a drawbar
and are operating under train orders."
It is clear from the language of the rule and numerous
Board awards interpreting that language, that in order for a conductor
to be required on the crane in question, all three of the conditions
specified in the rule must be met: (1) the crane must operate in main
line territory; (2) it must be equipped with a drawbar; (3) it must
operate under train orders. The dispute is over the third condition.
The Organization relies on its interpretation of Carrier's
Operating Rules, which, according to the Organization, required the issu-
ance of train orders to the crane on the dates of claim.
Carrier, on the other hand, submits evidence that in fact
no train orders were issued to the crane on the dates in question, and
that it is not customary to issue train orders to self-propelled equip-
ment operating in CTC territory as was the case here.
The evidence does not support a finding that the equipment
in question was operating under train orders on the dates of claim. The-
claims will therefore be denied.
AWARD: Claim denied.
H. Raymond Cluster, Chairman
G. R. Maloney, Organization Member J. E. Cook, Carrier Member