Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. ,y
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9121
2-MP-CM-'82
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John B. LaRocco when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada
(
( Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company violated Rule 120 of the
controlling Agreement September 27,
1979
at Dupo, Illinois when they
failed to allow Dupo wrecking crew to accompany the outfit.
2.
That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company be ordered to compensate
regular wrecking crew member Carman E. R. Smith in the amount of one
(1) and three-tenths (.3
)
hours at the punitive rate account this
violation.
Findings
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the
evidence, finds that:
a
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
2 1, 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:
The Organization brings this claim on behalf of a member of the carrier's
Dupo, Illinois wrecking crew. On September 27,
1979,
Claimant was directed to
return via truck from a derailment which had occurred 16 miles from Dupo (at
Iron Mountain Junction). Claimant asserts he should have returned from the
derailment site with the wrecking crane and as a result of this alleged misassignment, Claimant seeks 1.3 hours of pay at the overtime rate.
This dispute is controlled by Rule
120,
as amended, of the applicable
agreement which states:
"When wrecking crews are called for wrecks or derailments
outside of yard limits, a sufficient number of the regularly
assigned crew will accompany the outfit. For wrecks or
derailments within yard limits, a
sufficient number of
carmen
and helpers on
duty will be used
to perform the work. If a
Form 1
Award No.
Page
2
Docket No.
9121
2-MP-CM-'82
sufficient number of carmen and helpers are not on duty,
a sufficient number of the wrecking crew will be called,
if available.
NOTE: This does not change the practice of using train,
engine or yard crews to rerail equipment being operated
by them at time of derailment, provided this does not
require the use of the wrecker outfit or tools other
than frogs or blocks." (Emphasis added.)
The Organization relies on the first portion of Rule 120 contending Iron Mountain
Junction is outside the yard limits of the Dupo,Illinois yard. According to the
Organization, Rule 120 expressly provides that Claimant, as a member of the
wrecking crew, should have accompanied the wrecking outfit on the-return trip
to Dupo since the derailment occurred outside yard limits. The Carrier, on the
other hand, asserts that both Dupo and Iron Mountain Junction are within yard
limits because both points are part of `the Greater St. Louis Terminal Area, and
so, it could direct Claimant to return to Dupo via truck. The Carrier alternatively
argues that even if the Iron Mountain Junction derailment was outside of yard
limits, Rule 120 does not give Claimant an absolute right to return to Dupo
with the wrecking crane especially if Claimant's presence would not serve any
necessary or useful function.
The primary issue in this case is whether the Dupo yard facility and Iron
Mountain Junction are outside or inside yard limits within the meaning of Rule
120. This Board recently considered this identical issue between these same
parties in Second Division Award No. 8230 (Larney) where we remanded the yard
limit issue back to the property. On remand, we directed the parties, ".., to
fully investigate this matter by making a joint, on the site check if that is
the only way it can be accomplished and to exchange any and all evidence
regarding the yard limit logistics, if any, involved in the St. Louis Terminal
area." Second Division Award No. 8230 (Larn8ey3) (Emphasis added). The record in
this dispute, as was the case in Award No. 2 , reveals insufficient evidence
to permit us to reach a decision on the yard limit issue. Therefore, we again
remand the issue back to the parties and reiterate our holding in Award No. ~2:~=%.
We are also bound by the precedent of awarding compensation which was set
forth in Award No. 8230. Claimant shall be paid one hour c" weZes at the s±re.v1,:5
time rate. We emphasize that while this compensatory award disposes of this
particular claim, it should not be construed as an endorsement of either party's
arguments on the merits of the yard limit issue. On the contrary, both parties
have reserved the right to raise all their arguments, without prejudice, in any
subsequent cases on the property or before this Board.
A W A R D
Claim sustained but only to the extent consistent with our Findings.
F orm 1
Page
3
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By
narie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th
car
of April, 1QR2.
Award No.
Docket No. 9121
2-MP-CM-'82
NATIONAL
RAILROAD
ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By
Order of Second Division