(American Train Discatchers Association PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (
    (Chicago and North Western Transportation Company


STATE uPTT OF CLAIM: Claim of the American Train Dispatchers Association that:

 (a) The Chicago and North Western Transportation Company (hereinafter referred to as "the Carrie the parties, Rule 2(b) and Rule 2(f) thereof in particular, when it permitted and/or required a person not covered by the Scope of the Train Dispatchers' Agreement to perform work. falling within such Agreement on February 22, 1920.

 (b) Because of such violation, the Carrier shall now compensate Claix2nt J. H. Oatman as senior qualified and rested Train Dispatcher at such time, one days' pay at the pro rata rate applicable to Trick Train Dispatcher on February 22, < 1980.

 OPITIION OF BOARD: The essential facts of this case are not in dispute.
 On February 22, 1980, Carrier performed maintenance work on the westward main track between Low Moor, Iowa and Clinton, Iowa. As a result, the eastward main track was used for all westbound and eastbound trains travelling between Low Moor and Clinton on that day. Carrier stationed an operator at the cross-over switches at both ends of the single track operations. The yardmaster at the Clinton yard advised the single track operator at Low Moor when eastbound trains could be released to pass Low Moor on the single track.

 The Organization contends that the yardmaster should have communicated with the trick train dispatcher on duty, and not the Low Moor operator, concerning the movement o directly with the operator, the Organization asserts that the yardmaster acted in violation of Rule 2(b) and 2(f) of the Agreement between the parties. Rule 2(b) and (f) read:

          "(b) DEFINITION OF TRICK TRAIN DISPATCEUS POSITIONS

            This class includes positions in which the duties of incumbents are to be primarily responsible for the movement of trains by train orders, or otherwise, forces employed in handling train orders, to keep necessary records incident thereto; and to perform related work.


          (f WORK PRESERVATION

          The duties of the classes defined in Section (a) and (b) of this Rule 2 may not be performed by persons who are not subject to the rules of this agreement."

                      Award Number 24183 Page 2

                    Docket Number TD-24184


        The organization notes that train dispatchers are "responsible

for the movement of trains" as per Rule 2(b). Yardmasters, in the Organi
 zation's view2 are responsible only for movement of trains within the
 geoy aphical limits of the yard. The Organization points out that the
 Low i·:oor operator was stationed 1.5 miles west of the outer limits of
 the Clinton yard. Thus, according to the Organization, the yardmaster
 had no authority to issue orders to the operator for the movement of
 trains clearly outside his geographical jurisdiction.

 Carrier contends that the yardmaster's actions did not constitute a violation of Rule 2(b) of the Agreement. It argues that the trick train dispatcher at Boone2 Iowa was primarily responsible for the movement and eastbound trains from Low Moor to CLinton. Neither the Low Moor operator nor the Clinton yardmaster usurped that authority. Thus,, the communication between the yardmaster and the operator did not constitute the control of the "movement of trains by train orders," and., therefore., Rule 2(b) was not violated.

 In Carrier's view , the function performed by the operator was similar to a fixed signal or flag=. The yardmaster was simply informing the operator to allow eastbound trains to proceed once congestion at the Clinton yard had been cleared. In much the same Way.. fixed signa7.s or f] amen halt trains temporarily u:itil the track up ahead is cleared. In both sets of circ,=stances.. Ithe trick tra the movement of trains., as required by Rule 2(b). Therefore, Carrier argues that the yardmaster's direct communication with the Low Moor operator did not remove the resp from the train dispatcher.

 Finally Carrier asserts that even if this Board does find that Rule 2(b) was violated., there was no need,, on February 22., 1980, for a trick train dispatcher's position to be filled. It urges that there exists no basis for the Organization's claim that Claimant be compensated a day's pay,

 It is undisputed that trick train dispatchers are primarily res-Donsible for the movement of tra undisputed that the Low Moor operator was stationed outsid&the limits of the Clinton yard. Thus, absent some compelling reason to the contrary which we do not find., we must conclude that the trick train dispatcher should have been responsible for the movement of trains at Mile Post 9.5., where the Low Moor operator was positioned.

 Moreover, the control of the "movement of trains" must include the right to authorize trains to proceed. The work "movement" means nothing if it does not mean that. Here., it is clear that the trains were allowed to proceed without the involvement of the train dispatcher,. who was-primarily res-)onsible for their movement.
                  ~i:rard .,amber 24183 Fag°_ 3

                  Docket Plumber TD-24134


        Carrier argued that the Boone train dispatcher had to 'mow when

each of the eastbound trains reported at Low Moor. However, this is
 simply irrelevant to the dispute. This claim rests on the failure of
 the yardmaster to communicate with the train dispatcher before author
 izing the trains to proceed into the Clinton yard. As the _ndiv_3L,ai
 responsible for the -Oveme-t of trains at -x'7 ,:oor th tch°r harl
 the right to receive the communication from the yardmaster and to con
 vert it into an appropriate order to the Low Moor operator or the train
 crew itself, as the case may be.

 Also, we note that awards cited by Carrier refer to operations within yard limits and thus are not applicable to this dispute.

 Finally, we simply do not agree, as Carrier argued, that the "function performed by the yardmaster:..is no different from actuating a fixed signal or flaging a train." Here, the yardmaster did not stop the trains as a fixed signal might. Rather, he expressly authorized them to proceed but, as noted above, the Train Dispatcher is primarily responsible for the movement of trains outside yard limits.
For the'foregoing reasons, we conclude that Carrier violated the agreement in this case. However, with respect to an appropriate remedy, we note that Claimant's services would not have been required for a _full trick if Carrier had complied with the Agreement. Accordingly, we will award Claimant a call, or two hours' compensation at the pro rata rate applicable to Trick Train Dis
One procedural issue also deserves comment. The Organization asks that the claim be sustained because Carrier did not number the bottom of the pages of its submission. While we have decided this case on its merits, we remind both parties that this Board's rules and procedures must be strictly complied with. otherwise claims will be upheld or denied, as the case may be, on the technical rather than substantive grounds.

        FMli:GS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Dmployes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and E~mployes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has ,jurisdiction
 over the dispute involved herein; and -

        That the Agreement was violated.

Award Number 24183
 Docket Number TD-24184

 A W A R D
Claim sustained in accordance with the opinion.

 Page 4

 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADTW=dT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 ATTLRST: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 ,~r;
 6 e,~z
 strative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this

 28th day of February 1983.

CEivro-