9
ul

22 13 14


23V 24


2s 27 28 2s


PUBLIC LAW BOARD 110. 409

 IT. T. E. vs.

 1311IG?3 PACIFIC RAILROAD C0.

 Rule 111 (cj of the current Collective Bargaining Agreement

 between the U.P.R.R. trued tire U.T.Ii. provides as follows:

 "(c The arocedures outlined in pararraaha (e) an ~b) r::al3 govern in appeals taken to each succeedia.; officer. aLcimion of the highest office: desir-~aated to i=11clle claims and grievances shall be rendered frithin ninety days u:rlazs prier
 to such decision conPerarce is requested by either
 party, in ::hich'evant decision shall ce Ya.dored within sixty days .yfteY ..rluken notice of docicicn of said officer he is notified in urltln.- that his decision is not accented. All claims or grievances involved in a decision of the hiUh=st officer shall be ban=d unless within one year f r c.:r the date of said officer's decision, proceedings era lnntftute3 by the ea-mlofe or his duly authorin.ed r?prcsentati,,:^befar9 a tribunal having jt!r1F.diCti.^.n i.a:.iu.'~c".i. to 12w or sgree2=nt of the claim or grievazca invclvad.
 It is understood, t:o:eev: r, that t h2 parties say by
 a4^re-aezt in any particular case extend the one
 year period herein referred to."
 On April 23, 1959 the organization made foraal request

 served under Public E9-45G to establish a Public Lug. Board of
 Adjustment. A list of twenty (20) cases to be submitted to the
 Board was attached d and identified as Exhibit A.

 Carrier received the request and list of eases April 2$,

 .1959-

 The Carrier responded on April 28, 1959 stating that none' of the t:renty (20) claims listed ware properly referable to a fwblic Law Board of Adjustment, claiming they were in default under t·:2 Ti-.e Limit provisions of the Agreement.

April 2j, 1959 and April 30, 1969.

MILDRED HINKLEY AHRENS. CSR

OrIICIwL COYwr RL.OwrLw

couwr nouaL

Iv,w.r1. WwsRlRaron

s

 10 11 12


13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
The letter=of April 23, 1969 is sufficient for the establish.m3nt of 2 Board of Adjustment, it was delivered nithia tae time period and its contents satisfied the requirements of the rule, Claim B O 21116 is in default and the organisation agrees that it is.

 Claw 2361 is the claim of an engineer whose rates of pay d working conditionz.are governed by an Agreement between the Carrier and the Brotherhood of Locomotive' F,ngineers, thus a third (3rd) party notice oust be presented to them concerning

 the contemplated Board of Adjustment. Award

Public Law Board No. ~ shall be established and shall
 e governed by Agreement attached hereto. The Board shall have
 Jurisdiction over all of the clams listed on Attachment A to
 the Agreement. `. . .

 Dated at Bverett, Washington this ~ day of November,

Procedural Neutral Member

 MILDRED HINKLEY AHRENS. CSR

                DISSENT OF ORGANIZATION MEMBER

                TO PROCEDURAL AWARD

                PUBLIC LAW BOARD 409


During the hearings before this board it was recognized that one case involved a claim for a member that was working under the jurisdiction of the engineers' agreement held by another organization and it was the understanding of the organization member of the board, and I believe the carrier member, that in view of this fact the agreement would contain provisions which would adequately protect third party interest as follows:

    "If any claim or grievance involves an employee while engaged in work subject to any rule contained in an agreement other than that between this organization and the carrier, such claim or grievance will be disposed of under the recognized interpretation placed upon the schedule rule envolved by the officials of the company and general committee of the organization making that agreement, and the board shall forthwith make written request for the delivery to it of such interpretation within-thirty days. In the absence of such established interpretation placed upon the schedule rule involved, the award issued in resolving the claim oz grievance shall not constitute a precedence as to the interpretation or application of such schedule rule."


However, the neutral choosing to ignore what the undersigned understood to be an understanding compels this dissent.

 In view of the many times the "third party" dispute, injected by the neutral, has beendealt with previously by various tribunals, including some twenty or more Public Law Board, it is difficult to understand how the neutral here could inject a dispute where none existed between the parties and reach such an erroneous decision. It can only be concluded that he had absolutely no previous knowledge of this type of dispute, had insufficient or limited range of experience in the railroad industry, and completely failed to comprehend or differentiate between the disputes of this nature clearly defined in prior decisions.

 Simply stated, a jurisdictional question was injected by the neutral over the right of this organization to handle a claim for an engineer under the terms of the engineers' agreement held by another organization, there was no dispute between the parties.

 There was no work jurisdictional dispute between two organizations giving rise to third party intervention.

 The actual claim emanated from a dispute involving right to perform certain service for the carrier as between yard service or road service employees, both under the same collective bargaining agreement.
 We believe the nature of the various so-called "third party" disputes cannot be more clearly and objectively clarified than was done by Neutral David H. Stowe in the procedural award of Public Law Board No. 408, which is appended hereto to be considered a part hereof. Similar language, with the same neutral, was again stated in the procedural award of PL Board No. 427.

 In addition to the a',~Pove citations, the "third party" question has been dealt with directly, or as facets of the issue by Public Law Boards, 1, 2, 34, 37, 71, 82, 87, 88, 105, 131, 137, 185, 192, 226, 317, 375, 432, and 586; by the Supreme Court in TCEU vs. UP RR, 385 U.-So 157, 165-166 (1966) the same carrier here involved; and USDC Dist. of Colo$ BLE vs D&RGW,CA. No. C-717, 290 F. Supp. 612, Sept* 9, 1968.

 A decision permitting participation in the preceedings of a PL Board by a third party intervenor in other than a true work jurisdiction dispute can only be likened to the salmon fighting his way against an opposing current to lay an egg.

                                H. M. Price

                                General Chairman, UPU(E)

                                Organization Member