Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. x'230
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8073
 2-MP-CM-180



Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)


Dispute: Claim of Employes:




FindinGs:

 The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the en nloye 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.

Claimants, R. 1.1aellar, J. Fankey, W. Dickermann, G. Ham, and I. D. Cleveland, all Cai-alen and all assigned as wrecking crew riembers at Dupo, II_Li nois, al1a ge deprivation of their job in protecting the wrecker outfit, when, on the morning of July 11, 1977, Carrier dispatched the wrecker crane to Lesperance Street Yards, in St. Louis, Missouri one hour .prior to dispatching the Claimants to the same location via a truck.

 The instant claim arises as a result of a derailment of two freight cars in the Lesperance Street Yards oil the evening of July 10, 1977. As the deraiL:ent did not block the main line, Carrier waited till the following morning, July 'LL, 1977, before ordering the Du.ro wrecking crane and crew to St. Louis, T-,issouri. The wrecker crane departed from Duno, i33inois :prior to 6:00 A.M. while the Claiv=ants were directed to --o to the Lesperance Street Yards when they reported in at 7:G0 A.M. for their regularly scheduled tour of duty.
 Form 1 - Award No. 8230
 Page 2 Docket No. 8073
 2-MP-CM-18o

 The Organization asserts that the Lesperance Street Yards lies outside the Dupo, Illinois facility's yard limits and therefore, the Carrier was in, violation of that part of Rule 120 which provides:

It is the Organization's position that since the derailment occurred outside the yard limits at Dupo, Illinois, the Claimants should have been called out by the Carrier at the time the wrecker crane was dispatched so as to allow them to accompany the outfit as provided for in pule 1200

 The Carrier, on the other hand, maintains that, since the Dupo, Illinois Yard and the Lesperance Street Yards are both part of the greater St. Louis Terminal Area, the derailment which occurred on July 10, 1977, w-as within yard limits. In support of its position, the Carrier cites Second Division Award 7744 which in essence construed the meaning of the language, "within yard limits" as, not confined to the yard where the wrecker is stationed. The Carrier takes the position that nothing in Rule 120 requires that wrecking crew members "accompany the outfit" to wrecks within yard limits. With respect to Carrier's cosition, Rule 120 in reference'to derailments within yard limits reads in relevant part as, follows:

We believe it is inctunbent upon both parties to provide adequate and sufficient evidence to support their respective positions. We note the organization has submitted several exhibits which allegedly establish that the Dupo Yards and the Lesperance Street Yards are not within the same s ,~-ritching limits. Hatrever, since this evidence was not submitted by the Organization during the handling oz the claim on tile property, we must declare such evidence to be improperly before us for consideration. But, even if such evidence were properly before us, we note that switching limits, for tariff ,purposes, are not necessarily the same as yard limits, for operating purposes, and Rule L0 refers to "yard limits". As to the evidence submitted by Carrier consisting solely of a map of the greater St. Louis area showing the various yards within that terminal complex but with no identity of whether switching limits are common or different for the various yards, we deem such evidence as lacking probative value in countering the organization's assertion that the two yards are not within the same yard limit territory.

 Upon a thorough examination of the record, we find the evidence presented by both parties neither adequate nor sufficient to support their respective positions and therefore T-re are unable to arrive at an a:-,.7a-rd dispositive of the issue before us. We therefore remand the central issue re ga rdin ; the dete-yTnina,tion of yard limits back to the parties. In doing so, ;:,e direct the parties to fu11y investigate this matter by making a joint, on the site check if that is the only way it can
 Form 1 Award No. 8230

 page 3 Docket No. 8073
 2-MP-CM-18o

 be accomplished and to ewcha:g¢ arty and all evidence regarding the yard limit logistics, if any, involved in the St. Louis Terminal area. We advise the parties to take into account the fact that it is not unc=on in larger metropolitan areas to have several different yards within one yard liimit. Finally, and without prejudice to either party's position, we award to each of the Claimants compensation in the amount of one hour at the pro rata rate of pay.




                            By Order of Second Division


Attest; Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 A C _ ~'...~ t--_
 By - .~.r ~ '"~^'Yrrre er~
    R semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 3-6th day of January 1980.