Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7664
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7486
2-C&o-CM-'78
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee James F. Scearce when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 4, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute:
( (Carmen)
(
( Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company violated the terms
of the Agreement in dispatching the Satinaw, Michigan, wrecker
outfit to Flirt, Michigan, for wrecker service without the regular
assigned crew, and not allowing six (6) members of assigned
crew to acco.,Tpany, wrecker on return trip to Saginaw, Michigan.
2. Accordingly, the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company compensate
the following eight (8) regular assigned wrecking crew members
three (3) hours and fifty (50) minutes at time and one half (1-)
or five and three quarter hours, for not accompanying the wrecker
outfit to flint, Michigan.
Working No.
F.: Name Title and Rate of Pair per Hour Total
1. 2454889- D. Liebknecht- Wreckmaster- $6.78 $38.99
2. 2461039- R. Fresorger - Engineer - 6.72
38.64
3.
2454346- L. Liebknecht- Cook - 6.66 38.20
245+044- D. Ileinzr,-,an - Ground~nan - 6.66 38.20
5.
2454295- W. Browne-Asst. Wreckmaster- 6.66 38.20
6. 2454113- W. Kilbourn- Fireman - 6.66 38.20
7. 2454352- E. Falk- Groundman - 6.66 38.20
8. 24541`_-_'1- F. Stefanovsky- Groundman - 6.66 38.20
Total $306.83
3. Accordingly, the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company compensate the
following six (6) regularly assigned wrecking crew members when
thF!y were not permitted to accompany the wrecker out:tit on their
net-urn trip to Saginaw, Michigan.
W
orks? 3o. 8: Name Title & Rate _of Pay per Hour Total
1. 2454889- D. LiCoknecht- Wrecknaster-C,6.78 $101.70
2. 2461039- R. Fresor:;er- Engineer - 6.72 100.80
3. ~~;.SfaG'~4- 7.). Heinzman - Ground:ran - 6.66 99.90
4. 251+295- 1,7. Broime-Asst. Wreckrrnaster-6.66 99.90
5.
245};-32-
E . Fall,-
Grouncbman - 6.66 99.90
6. 24`i'+7.?1- F . St efanovsky-Groundman - 6.66 - 99 ~ 9
2
Total $602.10
Form 1 Award No.
7664
Page 2 Docket No.
7486
2-C&O-CM-'78
Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carrier and the employe or employes involved in this
dispute are respectively carer 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.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Between midnight and 1:00 a.m. on March 12,
1976,
the Wreckmaster at
Saginaw, Michigan, received an official call from the Dispatcher alerting
hire to a derailment and the need for the Wreck Crew at Flint, Michigan. An
estimated
30
minutes later, the Wreckmaster was advised that the call was
cancelled. (Claimants received allowance for a call -- two hours and
forty minutes at time and one-half rate of pay). After cancelling the call,
the Carrier moved the derrick and tank tender from their berths and dispatched then on to the site of the derailment, some
39
miles away. Upon
their arrival for their regular assignments (as carmen, Monday - Friday,
7:30
a.m. - l1-:00 p.m.) that morning, the Wreck Crew was sent to the scene
of the derailment with the remainder of the Wreck Outfit. The crew cleared
the derailment later that day (March 12). In the morning of March 13,
1976,
the Carrier returned the crew to Saginaw by taxicab, except for two
crew members (the cook and fireman) who were retained to accompany the
Wreck Outfit back to Saginaw in order to protect the integrity of the
equipment from weather conditions.
The specific rule cited in this claim is Rule 130 - Wrecking Crews:
"When wrecking crews are called for wrecks or derailments
outside of yard limits, the regularly assigned crew will
accompany the outfit. For wrecks or derailments within
yard limits, sufficient carmen will be called to perform
the work."
The organization contends that the language of the Rule and established
past practice on the property support the position that the Wreck Crew is to
accompany the wreck equipment to and from the wreck site. It cites prior
Awards that support the claim that the word "Outfit" in the Rule is not
necessarily limited to the entire consist of cars and equipment involved
in the rerai.lment activities. Thus, according to the Organization, when
the Carrier deternined it necessal-j to dispatch the derrick and tank tender
to the wreck site, it was obliged to call. the Crew out as well. It points
to the
potential
adverse effect of weather on such equipment, if for no
other reason. Likewise, the Organization contend: nast practice supports
its claim that the entire Crew should have accompanied the wreck equipment
on its return to Saginaw.
Form 1
Page
3
Award No.
7664
Docket No. 711-86
2-C&O-CM-'
78
The Carrier contends that a piece of the wreck equipment does not
comprise the Outfit as a whole, that the crew was dispatched properly
with the bulk of the Outfit -- particularly those units which would afford
the crew an opportunity to make the trip in reasonable comfort, and that
under any circumstances the Rule does not provide for the Crew to accompany
the Outfit on the return trip. In addition, the Carrier argues that the
punitive rate is inappropriate.
We find that past Awards, as applied to the circumstances cited in
this case support the organization's claim that the Crew callout should
have been concurrent with the Carrier's decision to move the derrick and
tank tender. The various prior decisions sufficiently establish that the
derrick is an essential part of the Outfit and the Carrier clearly made a
conscious second judgment to cancel the Crew call and, instead to send the
derrick and tank tender forward. Had the initial call been implemented, it
would have been fulfilled at the overtime rate. We find the same to apply
here. Insofar as the return trip to Saginaw is concerned, the Rule does
not offer the same clear interpretation. It is thus incumbent upon the
Organization to show that established past practice has been that the Crew
so accompany the equipment; this has not been accomplished on the record.
A W A R D
Claim No. 1 is upheld in that the Carrier violated the Agreement when
it dispatched part of the Wreck Outfit to the wreck site without the Crew.
Claim No. 2 is upheld as submitted.
Claim No.
3
is denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTM'T BOARD
By Order of Second Division
'F-' semarie Brasch - Acii-inistrative Assistant
Date at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of August,
10178.