Brother Marty,

This is in response to your email requesting clarification of the meaning of "general switching" and the extent to which a trainman may refuse to perform general switching.

General switching is usually construed to mean the handling of cars not in connection with the assignment or train of which an employee is a crewmember. PLB 5725 Award 1 examines this question in connection with the crew consist agreement in force on the former SSW railroad. That crew consist agreement provides that general switching is not permitted to be performed by conductor-only crews. The Award defines general switching as work "not associated with their own trains within initial or final terminals". Although this Award defines general switching it is silent regarding remedies, such as refusal, in the event general switching is required of a crew.

The UPED crew consist agreement contains a prohibition regarding general switching:

NOTE 3: These provisions are not intended to supplant yard engines, locals, zone locals or work trains, nor is it intended that conductor-only assignments will do general switching.

General switching is not further defined in our agreement, but the generally accepted definition in the industry agrees with that set forth in PLB 5725 and quoted above.

However, it must be remembered that the 1985 and 1991 national UTU agreements do permit certain work in terminals by road crews. These include pickups, setouts, transfers, spotting and pulling cars at industries, interchanges with foreign railroads, and leaving train on more than one track. In addition, Article VIII, Section 1(d) of the 1985 agreement provides:

(d) Perform switching within switching limits at times no yard crew is on duty.

This section goes on to provide that such switching will be governed by switching rules on properties with switching agreements. On the UPED Rule 32 applies to switching required of road crews both when yard crews are and are not on duty. Generally, these rules are not applicable until the completion of the three moves permitted under the national UTU agreements. Additionally, the arbitrary payment in connection with this switching is not applicable to employees who have entered the service subsequent to October 31, 1985.

In the case you cited concerning Conductor Pierson, his job was placed in jeopardy when he refused to shove the cars as requested. It is my understanding that he had a safety basis for his position regarding the shove. Had this not been the case he would likely been charged with insubordination and the case would have been difficult to defend.

In PLB 5912 Award 167 a conductor working on the UPED refused to perform switching in a terminal on a train other than he was called for and was discharged for insubordination. The Organization was successful in getting him returned to service after a year, but without pay. In another similar case we may or may not prevail.

PLB 6531 Award 4 extended protection for refusal to perform service. This UPED case involved refusal to pick up cars enroute that were not first-out as required by the crew consist agreement. The Neutral ruled that since this was not a permitted move under crew consist the right of refusal was therefore attached. Do not attempt to extend this logic to other questionable moves unless you are willing to be a test case.

The only absolute right of refusal of any order by Carrier officers is for the fourth work event enroute, pickup not first out, and any patently unsafe order. It is important to remember that these refusals, excepting an unsafe order, must be in connection with work enroute. They do not apply to moves within terminal limits.

I hope that this has addressed your concerns. If you have further questions please contact this office.

D. L. Hazlett
General Chairman