C:\MYDOCU~1\SCHEDU~2\3-25214.htm

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

Award Number 25214

THIRD DIVISION Locket Number TD-24418

Martin F. Scheinman, Referee

(American Train Dispatchers Association PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Chicago & North Western Transportation Company STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the American Train Dispatchers Association that: (a) The Chicago and North Western Transportation Company (hereinafter referred to as "the Carrier") violated the currently effective Agreement between the parties, Rule 1 - SCOPE, Rule 2(b) and Rule 2(f) thereof in particular, when it permitted and/or required a person not covered by the schedule Agreement to perform train dispatcher work falling within such Agreement on June 18,. 1980. (b) Because of such violation the Carrier shall now compensate Claimant W. W. Galloway as senior qualified and rested train dispatcher at such time, one day's pay at the pro rata rate applicable to trick train dispatchers for June 18, 1980. OPINION OF BOARD: The relevant facts of this claim are not in dispute. On the claim date,'the Yardmaster at Clinton, Iowa instructed the crew of Extra Train No. 6868W to depart from Clinton and to use the eastbound main track to Low Moor, Iowa account of a wrecker working at the west end of the Clinton Yard. In so doing, the train operated approximately 1.5 miles from the outer limits of the Clinton Yard to Low Moor. The Organization contends that the Yardmaster's order to the crew violates Rule 2(b) and 2(f) of the Agreement. That Rule reads: "(b) DEFINITION OF TRICK TRAIN DISPATCHERS 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; to supervise 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 Sections (a) and (b) of this Rule 2 may not be performed by persons who are not subject to the rules of this agreement." The Organization asserts that movements outside train yards are to be controlled by Train Dispatchers and not Yardmasters. Here, Extra 6868W operated for 1.5 miles at the direction of a Yardmaster. Thus, the Organization reasons that Carrier violated the Agreement under these circumstances. Accordingly, it asks that the claim be sustained in its entirety. Award Number 25214 Page 2 Locket Number TD-24418 Carrier, on the other hand, denies that it violated the Agreement. It points out that at about 8:00 a. m. the Yardmaster at Clinton called the trick Train Dispatcher in charge of lines east of Boone, Iowa and indicated that No. 6868W would have to use the eastbound track to Low Moor. The Train Dispatcher refused to so order the crew. In Carrier's view, the Train Dispatcher had no legitimate reason to deny the Yardmaster's request. Thus, Carrier asserts that it was proper and necessary for the Yardmaster himself to order the crew to use the eastbound main track to Low Moor. Accordingly, it asks that the claim be rejected. A review of the record evidence convinces us that the claim must be sustained. The Yardmaster's order, in part, required the crew to travel beyond the yard limits. Such orders fall under the authority of Train Dispatchers and not Yardmasters. Their area of control was within the limits of the Yard. Second, the Train Dispatcher's failure to order the crew to use the eastbound main does not alter this conclusion. The train could have proceeded to the outer limits of the Yard where permission to use the eastbound main could again have been sought. Instead, the Yardmaster simply ordered the crew to proceed both to the Yard's outer limits, which was within his jurisdiction, and to travel to Low Moor, which was outside his jurisdiction. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the Yardmaster's order violated Rule 2(b) and 2(f) of the Agreement. Finally, as to the 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 Dispatchers on June 18, 1980. (See Rule 4(c)) FINDINGS: 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 Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes 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 25214 Page 3 Docket Number TD-24418 A W A R D Claim sustained in accordance with Opinion. NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Third Division Attest: Nancy ever - Executive Secretary Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 11th day of January 1985.