PA12TI£S TO DISPUTE:'



      Claim of Conductor p_ A_-outlaw, ID 149267, and Brakeman F. L. Crawford, SD 3.62528, for a yawl day under Code 97, for parfuz=Lng work not in connection with the assiqnrasnt of Q402 a tnrouqri traight_


The Board, Upon consideration of the entire record and all of the evidence, finds thzt the. parties here:.rz are carrier and employee witlsia the meaning of the Railway Irab0r act, as amended: that this Board has jurisdict!-on
 over the dispute. involvmd ho=of=s and that ttM. parties to said sDFspute we=e given sine and prosper notice. of haarimg
      ' tharsoa_ on octorsr 30, 1993, ca"euctor P. a. outzaw and Braxaman p. L. Crawford pzatscted Through Freight Train

                                        F3- .B ,~ - X19 75'


          r~


                        z


No. ¢--90229, operating from Chattahooahees, 1~L to
 Jacksonville, F7.. Upon arrival at TacY-SOnV!llP, Moncrief
 Yard, the final location in the final terminal of -
 claimants1 assignment, elai3asnts complied faith
 instructions in the yarding of their train in the
 appropriate yard tracks at MoncrieP Yard. Claimants ware
 further instructed by the yu~er tv move thsix engine
 consist from their train to the Shop area.
 While claimants' engines were en rotate from their train to
 the Shop area, the yardmaater on duty lnstructed claimants
 to pick-Jup two (2) engines (CSXT 83-21 and CSXT 1157) which were sitting in another yard track and move such engines into the Shop area along with their emgirie consist. Claimants protested, but performed the duties as insy=ucted by the Ya=d=aster_

      It is the position of the ozLanization that, once

claimants had yarded their train at the final location
 within the final ta=zi_aland detached their engines,
 moving same to the shop, the piukIng up of engines dead in
 tow, as done in case-at-bar, is outside the scope of the
 Schedule and National Agreement Rules and is, therefore, a
 violation of alaimalitx· soheduln Zwgree:meat. Claim for a
 basic day at yard rates of pay is apgropriatc 3-.n
 accordance with past practice for violations of the Iine
 of demarcation between road and yard work on the former
 SGt. portion of CSX T=a· xtsportation_
 _ -ALB -No.49~S

                          3


It is the position of the carrier that with the evolution over the years of the rules concerning engines and engine exchanges, arbitrary and penalty payments have been elivzinated. It is the carr1ar' . further cc.~krrtention that the sequence of movements made at the final ter=ina3 is of no consequence in the determination of a claim's validity. Article VIII, Section 3(a) of the 7985 UTO uaticlnal Agreealent reads as followsz

 a) Road and yard employees in ground service ancc qualified engine service employees may perform the following items of work in connection with their own assignments without additional oompensai.lon ... (2) Move, tux= and spot lococotives and cabooses .... The organization has cited United Transportation UnioZ Conductors Q mz-airIMan vs. southeru Faciric Transportation Company (western Lines) in supper; of its position: That case involved the following factual situation, as set forth by ueutra_T. Gil vernon:

      At 4x30 p.m. on April 26, 1383, Conductor T. ~D. 8ulgard and Brakeman R._ M. Mallory (hoxeinalter referred to as Claimants) were called on duty in SarkM for Run 148 on Extra 8378 running between sparks and Rosevill.Aa- at 2-x40 a.2n. an Apri.t 27, the Clximaats arrived in Roseville at which time, they yardsd their train, detached their- engine= and tooy them to tile engine racQZv'sng track or =g roundhouse On their -ray to the roundhouse, the Claimants were required to pick up Rosav3Zle Loc_-,Motive unit Mu_ 8329 off tire main 23ne and bring it in with tjaeir angina consist per the request of the rourx3house foremanIn his decision, Referee Vernon not-adz

                                        ~-75

                                        AVO UL), 3 ~f


                        4


The critlcaa qvaation in thir. caWa is Whether the movement of the engine was in connection` with their own assignment in the sense that it was incidental The Board is not convinced that the work in quesLion was incidental or done i.n connection with Claimants own assignment. Simply, there was no functional relationship betwaan the dead unit and the c~r.L7=ants' mad assignment. Tile facts in thic ~casa arc identical to ttioss present In the Southern Pacific case- Cases cited by the carrier are not directly on point. Accordingly, this Board will follow the decision in the SP aaoa. ~1-hers has been no showing by the carrier that the picking up of locomotives CST 8121 rend CSXT 1157 were in any way connected to the regular road assignmantt of olaimmnts.

                      Award

The claims arP sustaimcd. The cxa=.-x.:ie.c is directed to , implement this award within 30 days from the effective date hereof.

                      Avbert o. Harris

                      ChaTxman and Neutral Member


      ~:~. s

      T_ D_ Noseworthy ~ 72_ D. sayder

      For the Carrier For the organization


Jacksonvi7L7cu FL. C4 ~.~- ~5 1995