Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11203
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10947-T
2-MKT-CM-'87
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Lamont E. Stallworth when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
( and Canada
Parties to Dispute:
(Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company violated the controlling agreement and the Railway Labor Act, as amended, when employees other
than Carmen were instructed and permitted to couple the air hose and make the
air brake test on a train of about forty-five (45) cars, which departed the
facility of the Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company and proceeded to the
terminal of the Missouri Pacific Railroad in Fort Worth, Texas.
2. That the Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company be required to compensate Carman Steve Robinson in the amount of four (4) hours pay at the proper
pro rata rate for the date of October 19, 1983.
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.
As third party in interest, the United Transportation Union was advised of the pendancy of this case, but chose not to file a Submission with
the Division.
The Organization contends Carrier allowed Switchmen to do the work of
Carmen at Carrier's Ney Yard facility in Ft. Worth, Texas on October 28, 1983»
Carrier admits that it allowed Switchmen to assemble forty-five (45)
cars, couple air hoses and test air brakes after which this train proceeded
to a Missouri Pacific Railroad yard, which is two and a half (2-1/2) or more
miles distance in Ft. Worth.
Form 1 Award No. 11203
Page 2 Docket No. 10947-T
2-MKT-CM-'87
It is uncontested that Carmen were on duty in the facility when the
disputed work was performed.
The factual questions to be determined are whether or not the movement involved a train or "cut of cars" and whether the two yards are within
one common terminal.
Article V of the Controlling Agreement states in pertinent part:
"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."
As interpreted by previous decisions of this Board, this Rule means
that the work in dispute is to be done by Carmen if:
1. Carmen in the employ of the Carrier are on duty at
the location;
2. The train tested, inspected or coupled is in a de
parture yard or terminal; and
3. That the train involved departs the departure yard
or terminal.
After a careful review of the record, the Board finds that all three
of these tests were met in the instant case. Although Carrier argues this is
nothing more than an interchange yard movement of cars within one terminal
area, the record clearly shows the train departed for the purpose of making am
interchange delivery to a separate yard of another Carrier; not a common terminal shared by the two Carriers. See Second Division Awards 6671; 10021; 10679.
Since the movement involved forty-five (45) cars departing from one
Carrier yard to that of another railroad, the Board is persuaded that the movement in question was a train by the commonly accepted definition as contemplated by Article V. See Second Division Award 10679.
A WAR D
Claim sustained.
Form 1 Award No. 11203
Page 3 Docket No. 10947-T
2-MKT-CM-'87
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: i
Nancy ever - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 4th day of March 1987.
DISSENT OF CARRIER MEMBERS
TO
_A_WARD 11203, (DOCKET 10947-T)
Referee Stallworth
The Majority has stated the issue in the second paragraph on
Page 2 of the Award.
The movement of the 45 cars was admittedly an interchange move.
It was not a road train and this was supported in the excerpt of the recommendation of Emergency Board 187:
" ....in the immediate vicinity of the departure
tracks where road trains are made up
...."
(Emphasis added)
There was no road train departure from a terminal. Else, all interchange moves are road movements, something clearly never intended by the contracting parties and properly interpreted by this Board. Second Division
Awards 5708, 7997, 9782, 10021, 10107.
The Dissent to Award 10679J which is herewith incorporated in this
Dissent, succinctly pointed out the error of that disposition and reliance
on that decision in this matter compounds the original error.
We went.
;V
?.-V.-Varga
Z,
M, W. Finrerhuff
A4a~c
R. L. Hicks
M. C. Lesnik
J. E. Yost.