The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Paul C. Dugan when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 154, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (Carmen)
1. That under the provisions of the current agreement the Carrier improperly assigned other than Carmen to give air brake tests on trains September 6, and 17, 1965.
2. That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to additionally compensate Carman J. Abbott in the amount of five (5) hours at the straight time rate of pay for September 6, 1965, and additionally compensate Carman W. J. O'Dell in the amount of five (5) hours at the straight time rate for September 17, 1965.
)'Dell, hereinafter referred to as the Claimants, are regularly assigned as ar Inspectors by the Alton and Southern Railroad, hereinafter referred to as he Carrier. The Claimants were off duty and available for service at the time Lere relevant.
On date of September 6, 1965 at approximately 2:00 P. M., a number of ars were switched out and placed on Track No. 26 to compose the Dupo Train o be dispatched to Dupo, Illinois. The caboose was placed on this group of ars and Carmen coupled the air hose and connected air from a yard plant nd charged the brake system and inspected same.
After this was accomplished, the Carmen were released from this train nd assigned other duties in the train yard. When the locomotive was attached > the train, and the brake system recharged, an additional air brake test was iven in conformity with Section 132.12(g) (2) of the Power Brake Law of )58. A member of the train crew was instructed and did perform the spection.
On date of September 17, 1965, at approximately 7:30 A. M., the same -ocedure as above was followed on the Dupo Train which was also made up on
The Carmen's organization did not get this rule. What they did get was Article V, and it is most significant to note that the term "or cuts of cars" does not appear in that Article. As pointed out previously in this Submission a train and a "cut of cars" are recognized in the railroad industry as two distinctly different things. Hence, the organization is, in effect, asking your Board to supply them with a rule that they were unable to get over the bargaining table.
The Brotherhood's position on this property was that Article V of the Shop Craft Agreement of September 25, 1964 gives them exclusive right to the work involved in these claims. This is wholly inconsistent with advice given them by their own Grand Lodge. There is attached to this Submission marked Exhibit A, copy of a letter issued to all General Chairmen of the Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America. Your Board's attention is called, in particular, to the second paragraph of this letter which reads as follows:
Obviously, the employes' Grand Lodge in interpreting Article V has recognized that the work here in dispute is not Carmen's work, under certain circumstances. It is our position that these circumstances are the same circumstances upon which we have based our defense of these claims, i.e., in summary, that:
1. The making of air tests performed solely to determine if brakes have applied to the wheels of cars is not the exclusive work of Carmen, but may be performed by Yardmen as an incidental part of their duties.
2. Article V of the September 25, 1964 Shop Craft Agreement has no application on this property because it is restricted to "yards or terminals where carmen in the service of the carrier operating or servicing the trains are employed and are on duty in the departure yard, coach yard, or passenger terminal from which trains depart" i.e., the departure yard for road service operations.
For the reasons heretofore given, the claims the employes now have before your Board are wholly without merit and we respectfully request that they be declined.
FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the ,,x,hole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dis>ute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway 'labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustmert Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
The facts herein are that on September 6 and September 17, 1965 a number of cars were placed on Track No. 26 in Carrier's Davis yard in East St. Louis, Illinois, after which carmen coupled the air hose, connected air from the yard plant, made a brake pipe reduction to set the brakes, and then inspected sameThe carmen were then released for other duties in the yard. Later a locomotive. (Carrier says also a caboose) was attached to the cars. The rear trainman, a switchman, signaled the Engineer to set the brakes and then the switchman checked to see if the brakes were applied on the caboose at the rear of the train, after which the train departed for Dupo, Illinois.
This later automatic brake application and release test of the air brakes on the rear car made by said switchman of the train crew gives rise to the claim before the Board.
It is the Employes' contention that Article V of the September 25, 1964 Agreement was violated because it specifically reserves to Carmen all the work of inspecting, testing of air brakes and appurtenances on all trains and related coupling of air hose incidental to such inspection required by Carrier.
The Carrier's position is that the train crew member did not make an air brake inspection such as inspecting the mechanical action of the brake or measuring piston travel; that the making of air tests solely for the purpose of determining if brakes have applied to the wheels of cars is not the exclusive work of carmen; that Carrier's Davis Yard is not a departure yard, coach yard or passenger terminal, and it operates no "trains" as such but transfers cuts of cars from one railroad to another railroad, all within a radius of l~ than twenty miles.
From the evidence in the record it is seen that the trainmen did not make an air brake test incidental ,to mechanical inspection and repairs, which is exclusively reserved to carmen. The automatic brake application and brake release test made by the trainman in this instance was incidental to the handling