Award No.
 Caste no. 2
fartlest Brotherhood of Locomotive tmeer
 and



Discussions M9morandum of Agreement Ro. 6, here lu issue, was
 executed on duly 29, 1942 and it states in its releusnt partnx













1944'9 the fedora. Government maintained an air ta" aoxtm of Msuo. Rail service for this bare was faxal.ehed by the Carrier through a connection at tbo ona of EYye Garrer's gain line. However, as a rcault of the Office or Defense TranWrtation ReOxlatlons, the E,rrier ups xxrah~.ro~.t~a t^~aa, suPPlying the base with Gt~'soline bf ral.l caw. Due to the Uamsnation in Caxrler txoineas as as result of the DDT Regulattons, the Organization and oa.er nsgetiatea the duly 29, 1942 Agreement estabUshtn- a yard or roustabout crew at Chino. However, later in 1942 the roustabout

                                          .


assignment at uhf co wan abnt x w , and there ices been no snob assignment
 at Chico since 1942. Wh».tever switching vas .required at Chico on the air
 port, has been performed by the local freight assignment operating be
 tween Yuba City and Chico (CAco Turn), home terminal at Yuba City.
 On AuDn,tst 16, 1976, thG 4rganl,tion wrote the
 rx er, noting that oraadum of Agreement No. a` provided, inter aria,
 that ,ohm all switching at Qaoo amounted to more than four hours fox six
 oonsocutive days a yard or roustabout crew will 1,e established.. The
 Ord ^$zatiozii contended that six consecutive days ueszks six consecutive
 working days. and that switching rust be aoaputed from once begun untU
 time completed inaluding time moving f=m aasipTmeu4 to aa=ignw.eat ;iN_.n
 the yard or switehlug limits. The ~rgairation's letter concluded by re
 gqe4tiug the Carrier to establish a yard car rousAaboat assignment or that
 the present lot-al. frell& t assignment bw paid rouats.bou~ rates.
 The Carrier replied on August 2o, 1976, taking issue. wif.h the urganisxtion'x GQateutions, and it did not esta.'blish g Chioo . yard or roustabout assignment,
 On April 1, 1.977, the Claimant filed the inrtant oialni f He kzas on the Sacramento Extra D-maxa. f :ras cat~led on the claim date for the Ch9.co Turn and filed a claim tot, 1,00 =&Iv~ M=use the Carrier had not 'eulletixaed a. Gt4co Yard job 3n acooxd=m with Yamorandum Agree ment KQ. ,t,.
 The Ofco Local leavwn TubeMk.T Qua goes dry Pules to Ctico. When 5.t onters the Chico Yard limits. switching time starts to count. WitIitn Chico taxd 11mito there are 1$ 3ndustrles spree over an areas of five miles.
                                  Arserd NO. ,~ Case Ns. Z


                        3


The 0:~rgantzstion scat" the claim is valid because the Carrier switched at Chico Yard for more than four ho,s in each 24. hours, z"Or coven consecutive days between March 23 and 31, 197?, but tt,~-CRXr.er failed to hlletin a yard or roua"wut job in Ohdoo yard,,
 The Oro.nisation contends tire a.e :-0 issue u 'T.-O ice resolved$ (1) how lo Switctang Time Measured acrd; (2) how are the six

 consecutive clays determined.'
 Turning to the first issue, the prv%%nization stated, to measuring exlLohing time, it is necessary to count sore than the actual. time gent in switching. Tt "ntanda that tho tiAe spent in going from one industry to another must be counted. The Orsanlgation,melut:lned that the Carrier adopted an unduly narrow and restxioted view in con» tending that only the tlma. devnttted to t.:o pi.yesica.l act of switching can be counted. The OrgaAiaation stressed that all the elements of work that go into a yard job should be counted, such as picking up and' setting out oars on various tracks; spotting care at induotrleay plcktng up cars at industries; switching out said cars; hauling cars from one industry to another and sag delays encountered in performing taid swit-_hin- duties. The Organization stated the Chico Lnca1 Y`.rei,ght Craw px~.r~a`n3.l thesenamod duties end therefore all the time devoted thereto should be counted In asc'Art?llnin; the time sspent in switching. It added it is unreasonable 'only to count the tit's when the "ubeels are tr,rnxn&."
 In 'Considering the second point, the Organization
 stated that the Chico .l, arcs a six-day job when the femorandum of
 cement No, f 'sacs executed and it so continur~d until the eu=ier unt,-
 laterally changed it to rive.-riR1 assig~re:,t in n"peiiL iy(o. 'The Carrier
                                    Awaxd No. z Case No. z


otat*d it was so customary to regard the Chlao Local as a aix--day Job that the drafters of Memorandum of dgceement 8o, 6 never considered adding the word. "working" to doscribe the six connecutive deyn. It stated t,!-.t the 1ogioaI conclusion that comes to mind is that when the Agreement read "six (6) consecutive days" it meant a worn Meek.

 The vc5anigation auserted th~t the wav the Carrier interprets "six (6) consecutive days," it is now impossible to qualify for a Obi oo lard or Roustabout Job. :Snob ace interpretation zvnders the Henoraaadum Agreement meaningless. In effect the Carrier has ahamged the Meeorandvm Agreement unilaterally in violation of the Railway Labor Act.

              The Organization et-at-vi +tho ..

                              ti4$V tle.GVZ'G] ot memoy'

random Agreement Ho. 5 were reasonable men seeking to effect a workable
 formula as to when'ayard ax roustabout job should be added.. 'they weed
 vea.i ix it,eze was enough work in a week to warrant putting on a O,
 roustabout job, than it would be don®.. QtherRise it would not be done,
 or it would be taken off.
 Tha Qrtanization urges that the Carrier°s unreasonable and restrictive interpretation be disrsrded and the claim sustained.
 The ^mgaruzaUon also denies that there is any mexat to the doxrse~ 'a procedural objections concerning time limits. The 1976 letter by the General Chairman was not a claim but a request or an inquiry and that if the Carrier did not correct the situation, a claim w~la tx filed. however, tae 1976 lettsr of the Qr$auisatiom vas not a

 claim. The claim abased on the vi nl a±1 oa wore .oil 4 uj. tLbj .
 uia ui.i;.i.mazit lit
 1.971 seen he was on the ext,.za board and not called for a Chico Yard ,job
 which shau5_d havo been, 'but w" mat, estabIished under the rKuif;ite

                                  criteria.

    _ ___ ., _. _. .__ _._,____ _~ _ ___. ._J. _ ...... . . _ .. .... ~a


                                  Award No. 2 Case -No. 2


                  ~xrser°$ ~a ~.t#ab

The Caller states the claim is invalid fax the following reasouss ,(1) it is tarred under the Time Limit Rule; !?l it conflicts with Agreements providing that there will be no separation

 betroen rvad and yam service= (3) the amount of switching petloimed at Chico within the Rix .c..-wnyc.-cu:~ra ud,y'S prior ?b April 1. 1977 did not amount to four hours on each days and. (4) the 1942 Agreement specifically provided "six consecutive days" and not six ooneeoutive work days,
 With zed to the Time Limits Rule which is Rule ?9 of tent Agxeetaent, it provides that all claims and grievances must he pk~eented is b~tof the employees involved wi thin §C wigs from tlxe date of the occurrence on which tine claim or grievance Is based.
 The -Rxi ar 'naArd. Vat the Ceners7 Chairman wrote the r'-:.:,·x-loi- on Auauc:i. lb. 1974 than

                "2. The records shox eoaalusivsly that wall In excess of fou.o hours switching .Is being done each working dsy."

'the carrier stated in view of thA General Chairman°s statements In presenting his letter of August 16, 7.tJ7(, It is obvious the Ghaimaat did not rx,nfor,'ne xi,t. ,- 4100 limit on MAIta &hsle., not prnaan+5.ng his, riad.m xIU:lst GQ days of the period referred to 'by the Genezal Chairman in his August 16, 19?1 letter. On the contrary. the Ulaimxnt halted some seven months to present a olalA lased on the same premises rot Earth by 9:ho aenexal G'ha.lrmaki In 19?6. Under this record, the Carrier urges the Board to dismi.nn the ow~a.- for falIuzv to comuiv with the Time Limit Rule.
                                  Awara uo. 2 Case NQ- 2


' Serondl,y. Ole CwX~iei siatA the claim ae filed is
 in cvnfli ht wd th Rule 32 whi oh providoo that 'Ula employees agree there
 will be no separation of yard and zvad service. tihen the asAm contends
 that a yard Sob ehould be erttablished and tulletinsd at Chju9, it is
 seeking to establish rep-grate y=A oorvtoc at adoo, which is in viola.
 tiua of the ztde that provides there --III be no aeration of yxzd and
 road servida. An April 1, 1977, the Cli.mant was a member of a road crew
 on the Uhleo Tam who was performing switching ut Chico and the Airport.
 Fir ^aai% Tor separation of the road, and yzxd, work constitutes the basis
 t`ax wahting to be paid twice for doing the work.
 ThIrdly, the Ca=riGx m,_^ lni$ins LhN.t the amo= t of time the Claimant spent in switching at Chico and the art did not swat to four hours or ;aorc within each 24 hour period for six eonsecutive.days prlox to, Apxia 1, lyi7. Me pier stated that. when work fell off at Chico and the Airport in 7942, the parties agreed to the disoon-
 ttu"anc_ of tale roustabout assignment, and for 36 s the work at Chico.
 has not warranted rk.~-establishing the job.
              Undar the 1942 A&recment, the parties agreed that two

eonditivns would have +,p be met beforo- aw as°-.eav mould 'cc established:

                  (1) Swltchuxg at C.hic~g oanciatcd -x four horrs or more within a 24 hour period;


              (x) it has to occur for s1x consecuttye

              days.

The dhrxd er stated that for 34 years there was no daput oyez the terms of the 1942 Agceoment until the General Ohairiuan, in his Augxot 16, 19745 letter, contended tlati (l) all time at Chico from nrri.ral Lo departure constitutes switching; (Z) the team "six
                                      Award iio. 2 Case No. 2

-fiConsecutive day=" mo*na *isix uvasecutlYe work days." The Organization later ipterpreted this to mean sucGessiva work days, not necessarily consecutive.
              The C~-rler s? »t.-. tbat the data compiled from Con-

ductors 'imp Return and Delay Reports and Switching Records for the Chico
 turn from Flarch 2& through April 3, 1977 aheaxly shoe th&t no cry agent
 z""our hmtrs or more awitehing dwrlng the six oonsecnttYe days cited in
 the Instant ciaim.
 The Carrier asserted that, during the eleven oQnsecu tiYe days. the record ehona, only ou two days, uus-s time spent on switching four hours or jpqrg_ on nine, dates. It was less than four hours. The her stated the Organieaifon'-s position that all time spent at Chico from time of arriva.1 to departure, .should ba counted as switching is not supportable. It stated, for example, if a rVMw arrived at Chico at 7:OQ P.M. and spent 15 minutes switching one car, waited at Chieo for four hours, aN1*bhed two more cars t'or 30 biriU'~pq, deg~tlng 631100 at mldnighL, the Orgmnization would contend the .p, i,.^~..d...^$ -rw,t f%'v'm hours svittph3,n6 whereas he had only spent 45 minutes. The Carrier stressed that the 1942 AgMaQnt xaa negotiated, toel.isinsie a crew for a1a5.mal switching, and not to add a crew unlessactnal switching aallaaked to four hours or more,
 The Carrier stressed that the Organisation°s argument, 'Pin a vie. "Six consecutivo dnye~ f440 of Its aua wet1gAsE. M__x epgaV;bi:-e days m"ns one day following the other in regular order without interruption. tt&&~nseoutive and successive are not the same, It further stressed that the Chino Turn is assi07,eu in each seven day period to xror7~ flv~ rxrRk~ewtivd days and have two conseontive days ai`f in each seven day work week. It
                                    award No, z

                                    terse IIa. 2


added that work days in a work pq,-;_od are not consecutive with the work days in tile pallor workweek er the following work week because of the two days o££ each workweek. Conveguently, the ~rn2.s~tian's attempt to substitute "nix eonsscctiva WO-4k days" for the phrase "six epn&OCUtive days" becomes aear4rpless benauno the= axe au "sax consecutive work

 dayls" JAvolved is the present dims-ie.

 Findings t The Boazd, upon the entire reoorzi and all the
 e,ida.-an, finds that the employee and Carrier aro Employee arid Carrisr
 wit ni.n Um meaning of the Railway Labor Act; that the Board bhae juz7.s
 diction over the dispute, and that the p&rtldm to the dtenute aert O.vhn
 due notice of the hearing thereon.

              The Board Urx" the brier's contention tell


Tourided that the plain has bb^can utitameiy filled and therefore is barred

 under the Time Limit on Clue %ae. The Board fiqds the osga~ctiop"s
 2cttar 3~4ed August 16, ,1976constit4tgd a claiz fox the fscstitution of
 ;. yazix or roustabout at Mdoo, The among
 other things]

              "In the interim we are xiavtro4

            ting cur people to sabmit time r ins daily on be- . half of first out extra man, ox ffra-t out emergency men and senior demoted mete to cover loan o£ earnings account Chico Yard job not being balletined or assifn®d_"

The Board finds that this is a foil blown claim. The record ahowa the Carrier took issue with the Organisation in its reply

 letter dated August 20, 1.976. specifically on the »tters of "actual Uxe consumed" in cwitohiug cud. "six consecutive toe,"
                                    Award No. 2 (;%Be No. ^N,.


                      _9-

The 0rg4uisstt94 eXently took ago further acetion until Clalruant R. D, Block, an extra board engsnepr, who wAs called for serwIce on April 1, 1977, and filed a time slip for 100 miles for loss of wxrniaucs feT ±hr r_,4~,a a~uej6eaa breach of Remoxaadnm AZ"eeuent No. 6,. dated July 29, 194?.. This was tho specific subject matter raised in the Organization's letter A.tAguet 16, 1$76, fax uhi.ch it was instructing its mslakera to file oluixs.
 The Yoaxd.finds that the subject matter of the claim was set forth to August 16, 1976 letter b.+ i_~ nit I,rlacU; or consumseated until Oril 1, 7917. Ms vas 7~ late, lo-^ parties tsaya mutuay agra®d to file claims within 60 days from the date of oc=:~ce on which the claim is is,sed. The record shows that the Organization did not act within 60 days from Aunzst 16, 1776, and therefore t1w, alalA is barred, and must the dismissed.

 Awaxdt Maim dismissed.

          Jaoo ldenbexg, Chajxman and ~eu Member


'y ~. FTirstpl,~qa Xem'ber R. R. GanY.rs ra~-ubox
 nJ u r .c.