Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10011
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10005-T
2-L&N-CM-'84
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee W. J. Peck when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
( and Canada
Parties to Dispute:
( Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company, improperly instructed
their Trainmen at East St. Louis, Illinois to inspect and complete an
Initial Terminal Air Brake Test to train #793 that received same and
departed East St. Louis, yards on June 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, 1980.
2. Accordingly, the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company should be
ordered to compensate two hours and forty minutes at the time and
one-half rate of pay for each of the instances to Cayman W. J. Ba1int
for June 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, 1980, Cayman C. E.
Davis for June 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, 1980, also Cayman R. H. Pierce
for June 17, 1980.
Findings:
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 employes 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`
The Carrier maintains a switching and inspection yard at East St. Louis,
Illinois. The Alton and Southern (A&S) Railroad also maintains a switching and
inspection yard at East St. Louis, apparently both yards are in close proximity.
The Carrier (L&N) apparently has one train, No. 793, made up and inspected
in the A&S yard by A&S employes, after which it is delivered to the L&N property
and taken over by L&N crews. Some time late in May, 1980, an A&S car inspector
was dismissed from service and as a result the other A&S Carmen refused to
inspect and certify that proper tests had been made to certain trains including
L&N's train No. 793.
Thereafter and continuing June 1 through June 17, 1980, the L&N trainmaster
instructed the L&N train crews to make the initial terminal air brake test. it
appears that this test was made before train No. 793 came onto L&N trackage.
The employes contend that this inspection and test should have been performed
by L&N Carmen.
Form 1 Award No. 10011
Page 2 Docket No. 10005-T
2-L&N-CM-'84
Article V of the September 25, 1964 Agreement as amended by Article VI of
Mediation Agreement, Case A-9699 dated December 4, 1975, reads as follows:
"Article V - Coupling, inspection and testing
(a) In yards or terminals where carmen in the service of the carrier
operating or servicing the train are employed and are on duty in the
departure yard, coach yard or passenger terminal from which trains
depart, such inspecting and testing of air brakes and appurtenances
on trains as is required by the carrier in the departure yard, coach
yard, or passenger terminal, and the related coupling of air, signal
and steam hose incidental to such inspection, shall be performed by
the Carmen."
There can be no question that under this provision of the Agreement the
work involved in this dispute is carmen's work, it is however, apparent that
this only applies in the yards, terminals etc., "where carmen in the service of
the carrier
...
are employed". The work took place on the A&S property, carmen
are employed on that property and in that yard, but they are A&S carmen, not
L&N carmen. The work therefore, belongs to the A&S carmen, they chose not to
perform it, this does not automatically transfer the right to perform that work
to L&N carmen. Since this work was performed on the A&S property we have no
choice but to deny the claim.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest:
ancy J r'- Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 1st day of August 1984.
low