SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY
(Pacific Lines)
(a) The Southern Pacific Company (Pacific Lines), (hereinafter referred to as "the Carrier"), violated the currently effective Agreement between the parties, Article 1, Section (c) thereof in particular when, on November 1 and 2, 1965, it permitted and/or required Trainmaster D. R. Anderson, an officer of the Carrier and an employe not within the scope of said Agreement, to assume primary responsibility for the movement of trains on Carrier's Oregon Division.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is an Agreement in effect between the parties, a copy of which is on file with this Board, and the same is made a part of this submission as though it were fully set out herein.
Attached hereto as Exhibit TD-1 is a copy of Memorandum of Understanding dated September 13, 1937, which contains an agreed-upon interpretation of Article 1, Section (c) of said Agreement and, for ready reference, Article 1, Section (c) is here quoted in its entirety:
Section (c). Definition of Trick Train Dispatchers' Positions. The above class includes positions in which the duties of incumbents are to be primarily responsible for the movement of trains by train orders, or otherwise; to supervise forces employed in handling train orders; to keep necessary records incident thereto; and to perform related work."
By letter dated June 7, 1966 (Carrier's Exhibit E), Carrier's Assistant Manager of Personnel denied the claim.
OPINION OF BOARD: This is a claim in behalf of Train Dispatchers W. W. Lowell and R. Q. Burley for one day's pay each at pro rata rate on the grounds Trainmaster D. R. Anderson on November 1 and 2, 1965, arranged with the Telegrapher at Grass Lake to issue orders to westward trains restricting their speed between west switch Cougar and east switch Andesite. Organization takes the position that Carrier violated the Agreement, specifically Article 1, Section (e), when it permitted Mr. Anderson, not an employe covered by the scope of the Agreement, to assume primary responsibility for movement of trains.
Carrier denies the claim with the assertion that an emergency in the form of a forest fire justified Trainmaster Anderson handling the situation in the only manner available to him at the time. It also requests that the claim be dismissed because it is substantially different from that submitted on the property. On the property it maintains that the Organization did not argue that Dispatchers were not primarily responsible for train movements, whereas in the claim before this Board it contends that an employe not within the scope of the Agreement assumed primary responsibility for the movement of trains.
The claim on the property and the claim before this Board involve the issuance of instructions to trains and relate to the responsibility for movement of trains. Both claims are concerned with a violation of the Scope Rule, Article 1, Section (c). Since we find no substantial variance in the claim we hold that it is properly before this Board.
The record indicates that on November 1, 1965, a forest fire broke out adjacent to Carrier's right of way between Cougar and Andesite. It was au extensive fire and hazardous because of the changing direction of high winds and dry ground conditions. In order to safeguard the equipment and the people attempting to control the fire, it was essential to diminish the speed of trains in that area. Although the Organization recognizes that the fire necessitated instructions concerning track side conditions to the train crews approaching the area, it takes issue with the Carrier as to the manner in which Mr. Anderson chose to notify the westward trains of the conditions.
Under the emergency conditions we find that Mr. Anderson properly exercised what he regarded as sound judgment to safeguard personnel and equipment by giving his instructions to the Operator at Grass Lake to convey to the train crews. He handled the situation in the manner which seemed appropriate at the time. Considering the situation Carrier was justified in