Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11036
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10571
2-B&O-CM-'86
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Elliott H. Goldstein when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
( and Canada
Parties to Dispute:
(The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company violated the terms
of the Agreement, specifically, Rules 142 and 142 1/2, when on the date of
November 18, 1982, they allowed on outside contractor, Hulcher Emergency Service, and forces to perform wrecking work at Newton Falls, Ohio, and failed to
utilize Carrier's assigned Wrecking Crew out of New Castle, Pennsylvania, who
were reasonably accessible and available.
2. That accordingly, Claimants, members of the New Castle, Pennsyl
vania assigned wrecking crew are entitled to recovery account such violation
of Agreement, as follows: Carmen: W. B. Ford, S. C. Perrotta, R. A. Perrotta,
and W. Rogers, each for six (6) hours pay at the time and one-half rate.
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..
Claimants are assigned wreck crew members employed by the Carrier at
New Castle, Pennsylvania.
On November 17, 1982, Carrier's engine #3508 derailed while being
operated by Carrier's train crew. The derailment occurred while using the
lead track servicing Trumbull Metal at the wye switch, also known as the "Hole
Area" Newton Falls, Ohio.
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 11036
Docket No. 10571
2-B&O-CM-'86
On November 18, 1982, an outside Contractor, Hulcher Emergency Service and its forces, performed the necessary rerailing service in lieu of the
Claimants who were reasonably accessible and available. Carrier's Supervisors
were utilized to supervise the rerailing operations.
The Carrier has asserted throughout that the trackage involved where
the derailment occurred was owned and maintained by ConRail and, upon ConRail's instructions, Hulcher Emergency Service was contracted to rerail the
derailed engine. The Organization has asserted that the trackage in question
is used by both ConRail and the Carrier. The Organization has requested that
the Carrier supply proof of any Agreement that has been made between ConRail
and the Carrier wherein ConRail would be responsible for the Carrier's trains
when traveling over the trackage where the derailment occurred. According to
the Organization, no such proof has been forwarded.
Rule 142 reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
"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 . . . . "
Rule 142 1/2 reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
"When pursuant to rules or practices, a Carrier
utilizes the equipment of a contractor (with or
without forces) for the performance of wrecking
service, a sufficient number of the Carrier's
assigned wrecking crew if reasonably accessible to
the wreck, will be called (with or without the
Carrier's wrecking equipment and its operators) to
work with the contractor. The contractor's ground
forces will not be used, however, unless all available and reasonably accessible members of the assigned wrecking crew are called."
The Carrier has asserted that the derailment occurred on ConRail's
property, and not on the Carrier's property and therefore the aforementioned
Rules do not apply. The Organization offers nothing to dispute the Claim that
the trackage involved was owned by ConRail and not the Carrier, but argues
that since the Carrier's equipment was running over this particular trackage,
the equipment remains the responsibility of the Carrier, especially for wrecking requirements under the above quoted Rules.
Trackage rights alone do not give the Organization exclusive Claim to
derailment work in circumstances such as these. See Second Division Award No.
6210:
Form 1 Award No. 11036
Page 3 Docket No. 10571
2-B&O-CM-'86
"That contractor did work which, if it belonged to
Carmen, was work of Illinois Central Carmen, and
not of Claimants. The mere fact that this Carrier
had trackage rights on the Illinois Central tracks
does not give the instant Claimants the right to
clear the IC tracks. Many trains operate on this
route. It was the right of the Illinois Central to
clear the track so that its trains could operate
over the main line where the wreck occurred."
See also Second Division Award No. 2405:
"The claim involves wrecking service performed by a
New York Central crew on a track owned by that
carrier. The claim alleges that such track is
leased to this carrier but that is denied and the
carrier asserts that it has only a trackage right
agreement with New York Central.
It is shown that this carrier has assumed responsibility for the maintenance of the track but there
is no evidence that it has any operating control
nor any exclusive right to the use of same. Under
such circumstances the claim cannot be sustained."
The above concepts have been consistently followed. See Second
Division Awards Nos. 6127, 6159, 6070, 5857, 5810 and 2213.
The burden of proving all of the essential elements of its Claim in
this case lies with the Organization. Third Division Award No. 20943. That
burden must be met through the presentation of probative and substantial
evidence. Second Division Award No. 6369. A close and thorough examination
of this record shows that the Organization has not met its burden. At most,
all that existed here were trackage rights on the ConRail track at the point
of the derailment. There is no evidence in this record sufficient for us to
conclude that the Carrier has sufficient control or exclusive rights to use
the track. The fact that the Carrier's train crew was involved in the derailment, or that the Carrier's Supervisors were present for the rerailing by
the Contractor does not change the result. Similarly, in light of the burden
placed upon the Organization to prove its case, and further in light of the
cases cited above, the assertion that the Carrier has not furnished the Organization with proof that there is an Agreement that ConRail is responsible for
the Carrier's trains when traveling over this trackage does not require a
different result.
Form 1 Award No. 11036
Page 4 Docket No. 10571
2-B&O-CM-`86
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest:
Nancy J. DK~ = Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of October 1986.