Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTM)T LOARD Award No. 6557
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6372
 2-N8dJ·CM-' 73
 i1e Second Division consisted of the regular members and In
 addition Referee Irwin M. Lieberman when award was rendered.
 ( system Federation No. 16p Railway Employes'
 ( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
 Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen).

Dispute: Claim of Employes:



_.'ndings:

 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.
thereon. -.

 Carrier maintains at Sloan,, New York, its Dison Yard. In the transportation yard of this facility is a hump over which cars nova at a slow speed (from 3 to 5 M.P.H.) when being classified or made up into trains, On either side and adjacent to the hump track axe pits which were constructed to permit oilers to stand and direct oil through a pressurized nozzle (from an oil line) into the journal boxes, which had been opened in the receiving yard. This was the sole function of the oilers at the hump track prior to April 5, 1971.






Form 1 Award No. 6557
 Docket No. 6372
 Page 2 2-N&W-CM-' 73
 In view, thereof, effective immediately all box lids possible r,w
 are to be closed by the Hump oilers immediately after journal
 boxes are oiled."
 Whether or not the order above, and its implementation, constituted
 a violation of the Agreement is the substantive issue before us. The organization
 alleges that Rule 129 of the Agreement as well. as Safety Rule 1302 were violated.- E
 Those Rules read as follows:
 "RLThE 129
 Trains or cars while being inspected or worked
 on by train yardmen will. be protected by blue flag
 by day and blue light by night, which will not be
 removed except by men who place same.
 1302. Employees working about equipment
 must protect themselves by displaying blue signal,
 A blue signal displayed at one or both ends of a
 locomotive, car or train indicates that workmen are
 under or about it; when thus protected it mast not be
 coupled to or moved. Each class of workmen will display _

 blue signals and the same workmen alone are authorized
 to remove them. Other equipment must not be placed on
 the track so as to intercept the view of the blue signals,
 without first notifying the workmen.

 When emergency repair work is to be done under or about locomotives or cars in a train and a blue

            signal is not available, the enginemen will be notified . .

          and protection must be given those engaged in making

          ... repairs." .


Carrier contends first that this Board is without the authority to grant the relief requested under the Railway Labor Act. In support of this position Carrier cites a number of awards which in essence hold that the Board , .... is not empowered to direct a Carrier as to how it shall conduct its operations but merely has the authority to interpret and apply the rules agreed upon by the pasties. This position is well settled and we concur in it. However, it is equally well settled that the prerogative of management to make decisions connected with its operations are limited by the collective bargaining agreements which it
 has made. The instant claim goes to the issue of whether or not an operating decision _
 was in conflict with a Rule of the applicable Agreement, and the possible remedy.

 Carrier next advances the argument that the Claim should be dismissed since there is no claim for money involved and there is no identifiable claimant. We do not find that the awards cited by Carrier in support of this argument are
 relevant to the dispute Involved herein. A reading of Section 2 of the Railway ·'
 ` i
 Form'i '
 Award No. 6557
 Page 3 Docket No. 6372
                                                2-N&W-CM-' 73


,abor Act and Circular 1 of the National Railroad Adjustment Board indicate that +'is Board has the authority to deal with disputes "concerning rates of pay, rules working conditions". Rule 129 is a Rule of the Agreement and deals with working conditions; yet no interpretation or application of this rule could conceivably deal with a claim for money. We do not find that the Board. is estopped from handling disputes involving rules such as this (see Awards 1393, 1424, 1462, 1466, 6034, 6051 and others).

 Carrier alleges that the Claim is deficient in that servicing journal boxes is not "worked on" as contemplated by Rule 129. Carrier states,
 quite accurately, that the task of the oilers at the hump does rot require them !
 to be on, under or between the cars, and cites Award 5301 dealing with a similar
 issue. In that award we said:

          "...we are not satisfied that the record in this case has established either that Claimant had to climb on, between or under the cars while performing his work or that the oiling of passenger cars while they are standing in a passenger station constitutes a clear and a present danger to employees who perform the work from the side of the cars without getting on, between or under them."


The instant case must be distingusished from the one above, however, in that the cars in this case were moving past the hump track oil pits (three cars per minute according to the Carrier and five cars per minute according to the organization) rather than standing still as in the case cited.

 Carrier further urges that journal boxes were serviced for more than t nty (20) years without the use of the blue signal, and also at other locations in a manner similar to that in this case. Carrier presented no evidence on the property in support of its position on similar operations and we do not agree with its past practice argument: the past practice cited did not deal with oiling and closing journal boxes on moving cars..

 Carrier's April 5, 1971 order and the parties' agreement on the current practice of oiling at the hump track constitute sufficient evidence in support of the claim. In making this finding of a violation of the Agreement we make no judgment on the safety or lack of safety implicit in the oiling and closing of the journal boxes; neither do we instruct Carrier as to how this operation should be carried out. We are stating, however, that the order of April 5, 1971 and its implementation was in violation of Rule 129 of the Agreement and of Safety Rule 1302.

                          AWARD


          Claim sustained.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Second Division


ATTEST: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board
                                                                i


        ...-1~-y1'r.C~C-Zt_x:;___-rC~~ ~'C.-.*~s


    Roo arie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of July, 1973.