PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 3882
AWARD NO. 194
CASE NO. 198
PARTIES TO
THE DISPUTE:
UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION
VS.
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.
(former Chesapeake and Ohio Railway-Proper)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim of Conductor P. A. McKown,
ID #077702, and Brakeman W. W. Hughes,
ID #197823, for one (1) additional day each for
May 30, 1993, account of being required to
handle engines 2216-6440-2103 between Acca
Yard and Fulton Yard, Richmond, Virginia."
Findings:
Acca and Fulton Yards are both
within the
Richmond Consolidated Terminal. On
May 30, 1993, Claimants operated a train in through freight service from Gladstone to
Richmond, their final terminal. After they yarded their train on No. 3 Main track at Acca
Yard, they cut off their engines and placed them in the Diesel Shop at Acca Yard. They
were then required to pick up different engines from the Diesel Shop and move them to
Fulton Yard.
Article VIII, "Road, Yard and Incidental Work, of the 1985 UTU National
Agreement, provides in part as follows:
Section 3. Incidental Work . . .
(b) Road and yard employees in engine service and qualified ground
service employees may perform the following items of work in
connection with their own assignments without additional
compensation: . . .
(2) Move, turn, spot and fuel locomotives"
The Organization contends that moving the different locomotives after yarding
their train was not work in connection with their own assignment, and therefore could not
be required of them without additional compensation.
Carrier contends that the move was work in connection with their own assignment
under the proper interpretation of the rule, when considered in connection with the
additional moves permitted by road crews in Article VII of the 1991 UTU Implementing
Agreement, pursuant to the recommendations of PEB No. 219, and the elimination of the
engine exchange arbitrary in the 1985 Agreement.
There have been two awards on this property which have dealt with this very issue
and have rejected Carries position in favor of the position of the Organization - Award
No. 81 of PLB 4975 (1996) and Award No. 44 of PLB 4069 (1995). In the course of
Award No. 44,
sustaining claims
for a day's pay at yard rate by the train crew, the Board
said:
"Section 3, Incidental Work, cannot be read without regard to
the limiting connection to the employees' 'assignment', which
was, of
course, to complete its road trip. The movement
of
Engine 7583 simply was not shown to be involved with that
assignment."
In Award No. 81, Carrier argued that the service performed by the outbound road
crew- yarding an inbound crew's train - was permissible under Article VII of the 1991
Implementing Agreement, written pursuant to the recommendation of PEB 219. The
Board said:
_2_
"The Chairman of this Board was also the Chairman of PEB
219. Nothing in the record of PEB 219 supports the carrier
argument that the recommendations of that PEB gave the
carriers the right to combine road and yard work except where
the work was performed in connection with the regular road
assignment of the crew."
Award No. 81 has recently been cited with approval in NRAB First Division
Award No. 24828 (1997).
Carrier urges this Board to overrule the cited awards on the property in the light of
awards elsewhere which have reached a different result, maintaining both that those
awards are correct in their interpretation of the rules involved, and that competing
railroads have a competitive advantage over Carrier because of the more favorable
interpretation. We must decline to do so, first, because we believe the awards on the
property have reached the correct result, and second, because in any case, where there
already have been two awards on the property rejecting Carrier's position, consistency
and order require that the matter must be considered to have been put to rest.
Award: Claim sustained.
H. R. Cluster, Chairman and Neutral Member
s
R. K. Sargent, Emp yee Member W. E. Griffin, Carrier Member
Date
-3-