C:\AWARDS\OUT\2-11374.htm

Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11374 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10630-T 2-B&O-CM-'87 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Robert W. McAllister 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 controlling Agreement, when on the date of December 23, 1982, while regularly assigned Carman was on duty, 1.A Job, Conductor, and crew, performed Carmen's work, coupled air hose, measured pistons, tested air brakes, etc. after which train, Engine 4301, 48 cars, departed Penn Mary Yard, for Bay View, in violation of Rule 144 1/2 of the controlling Agreement. 2. That accordingly, Carrier be ordered to compensate Claimants herein, Carmen J. Spinks and T. Zuby, for four (4) hours pay at the straight time rate of pay. 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 pendency of this case, but chose not to file a Submission with the Division. On December 23, 1982, the train crew of Job IA, picked up nine (9) cars of stone from B Track and doubled to thirty-nine (39) cars of stone on No. 2 Track at the- Carrier's Penn Mary Yard. The train crew performed air brake test and moved the cars to the Carrier's Bay View Yard. The Organization contends the coupling of air hoses and testing of air brakes by the train crew was a violation of Rule 144 1/2 which reads in pertinent part: Form 1 Award No. 11374
Page 2 Docket No. 10630-T
2-B&0-CM-'87

"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 depar

ture yard, coach yard or passenger terminal from

which trains depart, such inspecting and test

ing 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 car

men."

In essence, the Organization argues that since a Cayman was on duty at Penn Mary Yard and the train departed that yard, the Cayman was contractually entitled to perform the work as provided for in Rule 144 1/2.

The Carrier insists its Bay View Yard and Penn Mary Yard are both located within its Baltimore Terminal. The Carrier contends that a review of Rule 144 1/2 discloses the disputed work has never been recognized to exclusively accrue to Carmen.

The language of Rule 144 1/2 is clear and unambiguous. The disputed work is reserved to Carmen when the following conditions are present:

1. Carmen in the employment of the Carrier are

present on duty.

2. The train tested, inspected, or coupled is in

a departure yard or terminal.

3. The train involved departs the departure yard

or terminal.

The facts in this case are undisputed. The Carrier's Bay View and Penn Mary Yards are within the limits of its Baltimore Terminal. Second Division Award 10021 involves the same parties and an almost identical Claim involving hose couplings and an air brake test by a train crew and the subsequent movement from the Carrier's Bay View Yard to its Gray's Yard. The Board, in Award 10021, stated in pertinent part:
Form 1 Award No. 11374 Page 3 Docket No. 10630-T 2-B&O-CM-'87 "This was an intra-terminal movement between two classification yards within yard limits, not a departure yard from the terminal as contemplated by the rule. The term 'train' as used in items two and three of the criteria refers to trains ready for departure from the terminal for over-the-road movement beyond terminal yard limits, not to intra terminal movements between classification yards." The burden of proof lies with the Organization. Herein, the Organization has failed to establish by probative evidence that the three conditions of Rule 144 1/2 were present an December 23, 1982. The movement involved a cut of cars within the Carrier's Baltimore Terminal. We agree with the Carrier's contention that its designating certain points within the Baltimore Terminal as "yards" does not serve to alter the obvious fact the Baltimore Terminal is one unit.

A W A R D

Claim denied. NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Second Division Attest Nancy J/Ioer - Executive Secretary Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of November 1987.