Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29214
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-29411
92-3-90-3-338
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Eckehard Muessig when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Western Lines)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Southern
Pacific Transportation Company (SPTC.WL):
Claim on behalf of D. H. Smith, for payment of two (2) hours and
forty (40) minutes pay at his punitive rate of pay, account of Carrier violated the current Signalme
when it failed to call iim on January 11, 1989." Carrier file SIG-125-215.
BRS file Case No. 7904 SPTC.WL.
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record
and all the evidence, '_nds 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.
The key events leading to this Claim arose on January 11, 1989, after
the Claimant (a member of the Oakland Signal Gang) had completed a total of
twelve (12) hours of service at 7:30 P.M. Two hours later at 9:30 P.M., the
Carrier called two Signal Maintainers to repair a broken railroad crossing
gate. The question at issue is whether the Carrier properly applied the Hours
of Service Act ("HOS"). We find that it did not.
The Carrier, (a its denial, mainly relied upon Part 222 of the HOS
which reads:
"Even where an extraordinary event or combination
of events occurs which, by itself, would be
sufficient to permit service, the Carrier must
still employ due diligence to avoid or limit such
excess service. The burden of proof rests with the
Form 1 Award
No. 29214
page
2
Docket
No. SG-29411
92-3-90-3-338
Carrier to establish that excess service could not
have been avoided."
We find, given the particular circumstances of this case, that the
Carrier's reliance upon the quoted part of HOS above is misplaced and taken
out of context. The Federal Railroad Administration ("FRA") has determined
that a broken or malfunctioning crossing protection is an emergency. In cases
of emergency, pursuant to the FRA's Interpretation, employees may be permitted
to be and remain on duty for four
(4)
additional hours in any period of
twenty-four
(24)
consecutive hours. Accordingly, because the proper sequence
for trouble calls is to call the assigned Signal Maintainer in the position
where the trouble occurred, the Claimant should have been called in this case
to perform the repair work.
A W A R D
Claim sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
Nancy J. -.Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of May
1992.
CARRIER MEMBERS' DISSENT
TO
AWARD 29214, DOCKET SG-29411
(Referee Muessig)
The Majority _°inds that the quoted portion of the Hours of
Service Act Regulations relied upon by the Carrier to be "misplaced and taken cut of context." The b
is neither explained nor explainable.
We dissent.
M. W. F1nq r
P. t /
R. L. Hicks
M. C. Lesnik
P. V. Varga
J E. Yost