P%f:TIL:SS ) Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng· ricers
 T C?
 vj~.`iLt'f~ ~ - c:nl: -

u·1'ii 1'L;:~NT <F CLAM"'.-

          Clair-, .

          of Enqineer id. A. Rose of February 1'd, 19 7 6 Claim Ticket ritiA for 5 Hours =0 minutes anc' r-claims o= Engineer . E. T. Kane of i'iarch 2, 1976 Claimant Tic':et =^-1%2 ciaim`·_ns 2 Hours 20 Minutes red Claim Ticket $4-1/2 rated itarch 4, 1976 for 2 Hours at -yard. .rates for 1 er Eorming switch :rig at Brattleboro, Vt., beyone. one straight set-out and/or one straight pick-up. Also alt simular claims of record thereafter. C1aia:s are matte under the provisoins of Article 81 of Engineers S Chudtllo.


c l"J1idGS ;

 Ti:is board upon the whole record and all the evidence, f ."rids ztb' ~OilcwS.
            That the parties were given due notice o= the hearing;


That the Carrier and Employees involved in this dispute are respectively: Carrier and Emolcyees w%Lhin tile meaning of the !2ailwav Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 Thal., this Board has Jurisdiction over the dispute involved !to rc in.

 Claimants are Engineers ope.ratiny in Through Freicu!it Service from Brattleboro, Vermont to Nuw London, Connecticut. In addition tt~ s(%rvlca: i:orforvned on their road trip, C1rlimants submitted a separate cl%im t.ckat at the yard rate premised on their contention that they lc·rforme<1 .,·::~ ;chino: at Brattleboro Yard. It is the Entpioyees'position Lhat since Claimants w,:re Engineers assigned to road service yet were r-·.riuired tc perform switching at Brattleboro Yard beyond one straight set-out <:lid/or one straight pick-up, consistent with Article 81 of the partic^s' schedule Agreement, Claimants are entitled £o be paid for such service at the yard rates for all time consumed in performing said switching with a minimum of one hour.
 1'lLiliv: 1.~':1 iiv'~W':: 1;;:. 1·i Ul - ~ ' .. _
                                              ._:iv o:w. 1

                                            ..... .... .:~:. 1.


· k2;,rrier ON-c, .1 ''1.tt!:c:y ;_ci:::~::L L'Gic.: :a:!:1'·vLt. (::C.rY1.3r :::11i1:a.f:~ rC:al i;rC7.CJ.(;1 aLiL Li:~S' c: !tty .'._ c:r:aJ;: ic~·:::i:.1ll!i through VY:1tL_lf"~r,rf: and rict to -_rc*.-.,S Ori!TLn:atin!j at 'ratll_LO~O. ThC' C,;arr_U~ further iraiatains that th:v' cnnC~ 11!2;2 i:1th i.;: t_Clc ,°.1. is l:·3l1 1:7 1:It: :^1^r11 21, 1944 ar:rCr_1,ICIlt t~'lt 11.111 Uriiiil: di1;' allowed !.'U.·^,C~ ~r :.:.i compensation when they :·i·Yre r-quire, to pUrform switalin·j at l:rattlrhoro. Accordingly, Carrier ill:·i:itLLi tl'ta t tatter:! in no. ^Untractual suLpoxt for the instant Claims F:ubmitted by the road Engineers.
L=ter a carla=u1 re~Lww of the entire record before us this Board finds that Article 81 clearly supports the instant claims. W;: consider the oravisions of Article: 81 clear and unambi?uous. They :;t:-to t at roan .::<;:.l:e cress who are required to perform switching at Brattleboro be;·ond one straight set-out' and/or' one straight pick-up will he paid f::r such service or: the minute basis at yard rates for ' all time ceroLlmed in 6:o p^rformance rf such switching,with a minimum
 of one: hour. Noc·Jhere in Article 81 can one discern language limiting -
 tlit: provi:3ions theleA= Solely to those trains running through
 Brattleboro as the Carrier contends. Rathcr the rule specifically
 avplios to road crews performing switching at ?3-attl!:·boro (emphasis
 ;uti..1i,~d1 ::oie~l'ur, the hp:.-il 21, 15·:74 ao.Lt l:ro:t: 1·:ilich ;Article
 81 evolved contained no such limitation. . That agreement also allowed
 rt~!ad LL:cnvCcll!lve_·n:?atioa at the yard rate`..' when th·.e?y ierformud switching
 .?t i51,_tz-lob!3t'o. It mu:it bo noted that t;1e jurisdiction of this Boar!:
 i:: limitun to the, interpretation and application of collective liar
 .: d.n_nr: acrreements as tLearc written. we are precluded from supplyinc:
 _::G_pti.Un= Or li!ultdtl,ORS :when none are found to C=:1st ii: the contract
 ,as it ;..._ drafted. Thus if, as Carrier contends, conditions at
 'ratt1t..itore f:a%e ·:o drastically changed si1 1944 that the provisions
 ,C tha :·.pril 21, 1944 agreement are no longer applicable, then Carrier
 .~°;c~ul~i have abro;:lted the agreement long ago. However, this Beard
 1-1cks jur,L:sclictior: to do so. Alt.'luugh the Carrier insists that both
 th,a .·':=r^1 21, 1944 auceelaent and Article 81 have been cancelled, this
 l~crl;::i :nl.;st :~ecreully disagree with their assertion. When the
 :.r^1 '=1, 19.1·1 ay:eotaent aas executed, the parties specifically provided
 ..::t it was aubieCt to'cancellation by either party on ten days notice.
 ;5::·.:,.var, tn.3 provisi_,ns of the 1944 agreement :were subsequently incor
 ;nr.~r.: cl inlLo the parties' 195E Wage and Rule Agreement on Auclust 28,1956
 ·:~:ruat.n; _._:e for the tc:n day notice proviso. In lieu thereof they 1'·rcvlc:u~i, ..in 1.rticle 84 of thu 1956 11age and Ruie Agreement, that said .`.·tre·3c:erlt ,uperseded all previous rules and agreements and shall continu in eE_eec until changed as required by the Railway Labor Act.. i,lthotlc;h tile 1956 Agreement was subsequently invalidated, on March 18, 1511:5 the parties mutually agreed that Engineers represented by the Brotherhood o! Locomotive Engineers would continue to work under the provisions of the 1956 Agreement. Thus the requirements of Article 81 continued .in ef:ect until they. are changed pursuant to the provisions of tile Railwa% Labor :act.
 llubli·_ L.::: .I-oarcl No. 1801 - .i - :;as;· .;'.o. i
 ' Aarzrd; t-:c. I

 'fnf: ',.,..rrieT asserts tilat L-1C.''; 1-^:e done pruc:-.-.eli this when
 'i., March ltd, .1976, th_·" li~?r:'e.·CI al SUCt1'.7.1 G ILOtiC'- Utt the Cmoioyees
 cnncsllin;l. i~rtici~: RI effecti·:e April 1.0, 1976. Til=l Board is.
 constrained tc coneludv that we are e;itiic~ut jurisdirrion to d_·rnrntino
 l:'hcther t:'`= 1-·3rrlllr cancelled Art =C14 (il ei::(:CtivC A?rli 11), 19717 -
 C0.^.S_stent t".L to h_Cl·:·, r!°.^.lllrf·iO,^.:It.i o_ ,he aaii'aali I.a7Jp:: Act. :!·:Ct7.^Il 3
 tai l.hL AC= lLntit:i this ·i:eard t0 the :i'.'t_rpT=t~l~U.^. 1n:c1 application
 of c-1iec.tivc tsar_-airiinc! Agreements. Pte are not granteJ juris.'iction
 to adjIudicat'e clisputos arising *un~xer 5,'':Jtien 6 Of the Act nor art: we
 'U :a--,I in the N'itional
 Mediation nr:ard t0 render such deternination^. AccorCiilgly, this -
 uoard holes that, unless advised' to tn= Contrary by tae idatIOnal
 :1edlaticn Bc:ird, w·= :'onsider Article 81 in full forca and eff·=ct
 and claar_y nuplicab li to all the cl:,.ims before us,, the ae arising
 prior to April 10, 1976 as well as those: arising subooquent thereto.
 And merely bee..-use the Carrier served the redtlisite notice on the Em
 plcyees canc~aling the April 21, 1944 agreement, this obviously has
 no bcarin; an the instant c'.ispute inasmuch as Article 61 of the 1956
 Agreement, as extended by the March 18, 111'65 understanding, obviously.
 supers;idea the 1944 agreement.

 'his Board further holds that mere!;, because no claims were filed ::_-- the Employes for a period of three ;-ears and fiv-^_ rtcetth=, this tionuthe_ltss dial not precludo the Employees from assertinq violation of Articlo 81 as the;, havr_· done herein. As noted heretofcrf. this Uoarc: finds Article 81 clear and unambiguous, and as such, claims alleq_ng a violation thereof ma., be submitted at any time providing, of course, .that any. applicable time 'Limits are comnlir·d with. iiorecver, neit:ier the: July .13, 1966 Southern Division :-ray freight agreement nor Article V of tae June 25, 1964 National Agreement vitiated the clear provisions of Article 81 as the Carrier suggests. However, consistent with Section 11 of the August 11, 1948 National Agreement, any initial termin,-I delr:c· t::iyment previously accord-d Claimants for any of the clairl dat'cs mu_,t be d::rIucted from the contuensation due them under AcLicle 81. Accordingly, this Board Conclude:'-. that the instant claims are suppor to d b; th·:! clear anti unequivocal 'provisions of Articlsi 81. Cialraonts :,ire thcroEore enritled t0 b`- paid ·lt yard rates for all time c;r.su;t:_d ic: ea:Uching at Urattleboro le:a' any initial terminal delay payment previously granted them.

 AN',% RD
            Claim sustained per the Findings. '


Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective cti or before thirty days from the date hereof.

                          Pob~11. U urien, Cnairman and Neutral

                          Member


' . ~ , ~·~'d. Zt y~.~. ~ ~.~GCLG~Ec(. ~ t.o-a
J, W. Craw ford_04m~3oyee Member K. I. Fadden, Carrier member

 Dated thi:> ! 5;I,- day of ~GTD~3G'~ 1977.