The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Irving T. Bergman when award was rendered.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Gulf, Mobile and Ohio Railroad Company, hereinafter referred to as the Carrier, operates a train yard and repair track at Bogalusa, Louisiana. On date of May 8, 1970, freight car M.P. 130068 arrived in Bogalusa train yard at 11:50 P. M. in Train No. 32 which is a through freight.
Third shift Car Inspector D. S. Jenkins, while inspecting the train found a broken train line (main brake pipe) on the "A" end of M.P. 130068 which required extensive repairs. He placed a bad-order card on the car and the Yardmaster had the car switched out of the train. The train departed shortly thereafter.
Saturday morning, May 9, 1970, Mechanical Foreman Davis came to the repair track to determine how many bad-ordered cars were on hand. He noted M.P. 130068 there and placed a message to the Yardmaster to move the car back to the train yard and have the Car Inspector repair it.
The car was subsequently placed in the train yard on a track not in use and Train Yard Inspector J. A. Brumfield was required to repair it on May 9, 1970. The repairs required the removal of the air hose; removal of "U" clamp which is secured with two 5/s" nuts; removal of the angle cock; and the removal of 11/4" brake pipe nipple and coupling. It then required the installing of new nipple and coupling and replacing the other parts which took approximately one hour.
Carrier has shown without question of doubt that this claim is not supported by the Contract, past practice or common sense and should be denied.
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.
The undisputed facts provide the key to the solution. In this case, a through freight train arrived at the Bogalusa yard one and one half hours late. It was discovered that a revenue car had a leaking train line (main brake pipe). In the judgment of the car inspector, it was advisable to bad-order the car and have it switched out of the train to the repair track. The train left shortly after this was done. This took place about 11:50 P. M. on a Friday night, May 8, when no repair track carman was on duty. On Saturday morning, May 9, the Mechanical Foreman saw the revenue car on the repair track. No regularly schedule carman would be on duty until Monday morning. In the Foreman's judgment, the repair should be made promptly, the car restored to a train and be on its way before Monday. To accomplish this, he had the car placed on an unused track in the train yard where it was repaired on that day by a Train Yard Inspector. At 4:10 A. M., Monday May 10, the car was on its way.
There is no disagreement that it was good business to move this car without delay and that the Carrier was not required to leave the car unrepaired until Monday morning. It is agreed that both the Train Yard Inspector and the repair track carman were qualified to make the repair and that both are on the same roster. Rule 57.0 of the Agreement so far as it covers this situation is clear and states simply, "* * *, nor will train yardmen be required to work on cars taken from trains to repair tracks."
The Carrier concedes that the intervt of Rule 510 is to prevent sending train yard carmen to repair cars on the repair track. It argues that the same car sent back to the train yard becomes a proper repair job for a train yard carman. It also argues that the repair required only fifteen minutes, and concludes that when a car is placed on a repair track by mistake, the Carrier should not be penalized by calling an off duty repair carman to make a repair when a train yard carman on the same seniority roster is available to do the work in the train yard.
In this case there was not a mistake. It was a judgment decision to badorder the car and place it on the repair track. This may or may not have been due to the time required to make the repair or the time required to switch the car out of the train so that the repair could be made with safety to the employe, or to enable the train to proceed without further delay, or to a combination of these factors.
Whether or not the car inspector used good judgment is not for this Board to decide on the claim and on the arguments presented. It is fundamental that