a.



        UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION (E) VS. PITTSBURGH, CHARTIERS & YOUGHIOGHENY RAILWAY COMPANY


                          STATEMENT OF CLAIM


            Time Claim ii71-1, dated February 4, 1971, Foreman J. F. Panno and Helpers W. R. Price and J. R. Pieto: "Allow one days pay for J. F. Panno and crew for preparing an interch an-a train. on a foreign interchange track (41 & 5 Scully Yd. Penn. Central) for movement to the PC&Y Ry."


        _ STATEMENT OF FACTS r.' a:..^.:a^t:: Seek penalty pay GalcaIISC thcy coupled :come air and released some retainers on cars received in interchange.


        DISCUSSION The Organization cites no provisions of the Agreement which would require Carrier to pay Claimants extra coricensation _"-.or porforming this service, but ue are asked to sustain this claim because,


                . the p:=incinles of ~ uare w°11 established. by the -Firt-t Division . . . and Public Law Boards

            that v~hen a delivering carrier is making an iaterchr:nge

            d£livc' to r1 renni .-ing J "i r , ."he ._s .-placcri on

      . ' the inte-rcaange track tMu:>t all be coupleitoCJetfa'r, _all

            sir hnsc-s must be tied uo . . ." '

                                              P~ Nr~ iosa


                                              -2- :. .


No award is cited by Petitioners in support of such claimed
 prinGipies...
 fih%s typo of submission is indicative of a growing trend towaxrl reliance on assorted but unidentified holdings of the National Railroad Adjustment Board or Public Law Boards. tae respectfully observe that the salutary design of the Railway Labor Act to promote harmonious labor-management relations would be ill-served by encouragement of this trend.
 Indeed, it would be grossly improper for this arbitration board to sustain this claim on the basis o` putative "principles" not shown to be directly applicable to the Agreement between the - parties hereto. Boardssuch as this were never intended to function as authors of .railroad common law. The carriers and the unions themselves are far more qualified to ~ra-~ the contracts governing their relationship than Ore ad hoc arbitral boards.
 Most importantly, we would remind Petitioners that the entire burden of proof rests on the grieving party. The disca-r,e. of this burden requires a submission containing the folloaring:
 1. An uncontested statement of facts, or supporting fac-z:ual data sufficient to form the basis of a finding of fact, and
 2. Citation of one or more s-.ecific rul-esctl the nroaertv supporting the claimed rule violation'.
 In the absence of this rt:quiremcnt no sustaining aw-rd -S proper, for we are not clothed with the authority of a court of cquitv. Even if we w.--re, i.t should ba apparent that when a cal? ,eking carrier. leaves a train in improper order, it is thc: =e·.:ei~:ng
                                            ,DL~Do. X052


                                        v ~D tUO- ~ .


                                              -3-


c.,rrier, noL i.ts empl.oyocs, who :suffers ~ithe principal loss. This fact will serve to encourage the receiving carrier. to protect. its employees from unnecessary worK on interchange cars.

                      FINDINGS

                                  i

                                  I

      This is no showing of agreement support of. this claim.


      Claim denied.


                      ~'~twL^1..~._~ ` ~~1 r~9"tn~

                      - DAVID H. PROVR, Chairmn and

                      tI~ I-ral i-tember


                        Y. t . J:AN'-'I?iI,D Ca . ier t!er.~ber


                        E. 1'. I;RB~I:_:if, Organization :-!u_:-.ber /


April 25, 1973,

 0
 i