Award No. 5671 Docket No. 5484 2-SOU-CM-'69
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee George S. Ives when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION No. 21, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. - C. I. O. (Carmen)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACT: A typographical error has been made in Employes notification letter dated June 8, 1967, in part 2 of our claim, as evidenced by caption on notification letter dated June 8, 1967.
Carmen E. F. Proctor and Billy Berrier, Knoxville, Tennessee, hereinafter referred to as the Claimants, employed by the Southern Railway Company, Knoxville, Tennessee, hereinafter referred to as the Carrier, in the Departure Yard (John Sevier), Knoxville, Tennessee. Claimants were available and qualified to perform the work here involved, i.e., the coupling of air hose and inspection and testing of brakes on the K and A Belt in the John Sevier Departure Yard, Knoxville, Tennessee on February 6 and 11, 1966.
On February 6 and 11, 1966, Switchmen were instructed and/or authorized to couple air hose, inspect and test the brakes on the K and A Belt in the John Sevier Departure Yard, Knoxville, Tennessee, where Carmen are
demonstrates the absurdness of the claims and the unsoundness of the Brotherhood's position.
Claim being barred, the Board is lift with no alternative but to dismiss it for want of jurisdiction.
FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, .finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
Petitioner contends that Carrier improperly assigned switchmen to inspect, couple hose and make brake tests on Carrier's K and A Belt train prior to departure from its Sevier Yard, Knoxville, Tennessee on February 6 and 11, 1966. It is alleged that the disputed work belongs exclusively to Carmen under the provision of Article V of the January 27, 1965 Agreement, which in part reads as follows:
In the first instance, Carrier avers that the claim submitted to the Division is not the same claim presented and progressed on the property by Petitioner, and that said claim must be dismissed as it was not handled in accordance with Section 3 First (i) of the Railway Labor Act, as amended.
It is apparent that the original claim through inadvertance was expanded to include an additional claim on behalf of E. F. Proctor which was not alleged or considered while the dispute was being progressed on the property. Such additional claim must be dismissed, but the original claim on the property will be considered as the erroneous claim can be excised readily therefrom.
As to the merits of the dispute, the record reveals the the train movements involved on the dates of claim were wholly within the terminal limits at Knoxville, Tennessee, and that Carrier's Sevier Yard, where cars were assembled, does not constitute a departure yard from which said trains departed outside the limits of the terminal. In view of the foregoing, we find that Petitioner has failed to established through probative evidence that the trains tested, inspected or coupled actually departed from a departure yard