Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9205
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
88$5
2-MP-Chi-' 82
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Steven Briggs 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 and Article VII on March 1,
1979,
when they issued
call for wrecking service at 23rd Street, St. Louis, Missouri outside the
Dupo, Illinois yard limit and failed to take a sufficient amount of the
regular assigned wrecking crew members with the outfit.
2. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company be ordered to compensate
regular assigned wrecking crew members Carmen E. R. Smith, W. A.
Dickerman, J. L. Anderson and G. Ham in the amount of one (1) and six..
tenth
(.6)
hours at the punitive rate.
Fps:
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 employee involved in this dispute
are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act:
as approved June 21, 193+.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Claimants E. R. Smith, et al, allege that the Carrier violated Rule
120
on
March 1,
1979,
when it issued a call for wrecking service to the scene of a
derailment and failed to take a sufficient number of regularly assigned wrecking
crew members with the outfit. Rule 120 provides as follows:
'"rThen wrecking crews are called for wrecks or derailments
outside of yard limits, a sufficient number of the
regularly assigned crew will accompany the outfit."
It is the Organization's contention that the location of the derailment in
the instant case lies outside the Dupo, Illinois yard limit. In contrast, the
Carrier maintains that the derailment location was within the yard limit.
Neither the Carrier nor the Claimant has produced sufficient evidence in this
record to substantiate its definition of the Dupo, Illinois yard limit. Accordingly,
the Board is unable to determine whetIner Rule 120 was violated.
Form 1
Page 2
Award 11o . 9205
Docket No. 8885
2-2dP-Chi-' 82
The Board further notes that definition of the Dupo, Illinois yard limits has
been a longstanding source of conflict between the parties. Second Division Award
8230
(Docket 8073) focused upon the same general issue with the same parties
and stated in part:
'... we direct 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
arty, involved in the St. Louis terminal area. We advise
the parties to take into account the fact that it is not
uncommon in larger metropolitan areas to have several
different yards within one yard limit."
In the instant matter the Board again remands the physical determination of
yard limits back to the parties with the hope that they will recognize it will be
to their mutual benefit to do so without undue delay. Such point determination
is in their respective beat interests for many reasons, not the least of which is
the prevention of needless future grievances on this issue.
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.
AW AR D
Claim sustained in part as set forth in Findings.
NATIONAL RAILROAD
ADJUSTMENT
BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
~,rOsemarie Braach - Administrative Assistant
Date at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of July, 1982.