· a trsi.sa ;AW BOARD NO, 5441


PARTIES T0VX5PUTZt

· C5X TXANSPORTATIOb7, INC.





This Board, upon consideration of the satire record and all of the evidence, finds that the parties herein rite ear-xat and employee within the meaning of the Railway Lsbor Act, as amended: that this Board ham jurisdiction ova. the diaputa involved hexsia= sad that the parties to said diapuGe ware given due and proper notice of hearing
 ' h'1 - a ,.vo - 5 ~/%
 ... _ - Ara~D NO
thareos~.
 Pzi December 18, 1982, claimants were assigned to take Train $517 from Cincinnati to Louisville. As part ef that assiyamant. but not_ included within their work order, claimants were W.Yeotad to get oft 32 care in Laton_ia passing traok (within the Cincinnati Terminal switching limits) prier to their depaYtura prom their initial terminal. They departed Queaac¢ata Yasct with i$0 terra.
 This c1niR, were filed by thp orgaa.ixation because it believes that the set-off ucoamplishaa lit x.attmia was in violation of C::e = National ?.syrqemerat since only 108 cars were destined for Louisville: in other words, the organization conti"tsds that Cleimahta p"formad work "not in connection with their own train when they set off 32 cars at the Lato:lia Faaaing ^rack. The Carrier denied the claim an the basis that the work in question is Permissible under the Provision* of the 1691 tITU implementing Documents. Section lIa) of Article Vxt of the = National Aqreement reads as follows:

      Pursuant to the n®w road/yax·G.proviaions contained in the recoscmex,datiosu of PsasidQntial xneraeacY Board N6. 219, as clarified, a road crew MAY Perform in connection with its own train without additional Compensation ore move in Addition to tkiasa permitted by previous

      Ayroomaatv at each of the fa) initial terminal,

      ;b) intermediate points, and to) final terminal.

      Xaah of those moves -- those previously allowed

      -Plus the new alias -- may be any one of those prasarihed by the presidential Emergency Beard:

. _. fca : ~o . ~'~r
 _ __ A
                                            ~, b ,~o , y8


                            3


        pink-ups, set-sots. veteirie ox ietmtba tsaia on maltfplo tracks, 3ntarohxnCrirW witb foreign railroads, traaaferrazsg cars within x switching limit, and apottinC and pulling ears at industries. The question 3u this case is the applicability at the above-ouotsd provision to the factual aituatiaa vrcssat in


        this case.


        It is clear that FEE 219 recotmsd that the carriers be allowed greater tlaxi.bil3ty 3n roaQ-ynrd movsazcata. However, the =eaenlmendationrs ocnta3Yt0d very speoifia liati.tatioris, one of which was that the movements had-to 'be in cOnnaCtioA with the clam's own train. The question in this case is whether the mevement o£ the 32 cure f=aro QVD9n§gEtC t6 L6tDn3.7s WAS in aonneqtion with the aFew's own train. The carrier states that it was; however, the bast evidence 13 the work order which directed the arses to perform the wor?s involved sdjt_h its

        -2'hxt work order authorized the movemeast of 108 cars, not 140 as the Carrier 710W contends.


        - Mere is no sauaatacn but that £f the carrier bad propar7y dasasibad the train as containing 140 cars with dixactions to drop off 32 oars at x,actOnia, the drop-off would have been within. the &cove of ,r?eCti011 1Sa) of Article axx of the VTU National Agreement, However, far whatever xesson, the carx3.ax failed to write a proper woxk Order- It now must pay the penalty.

                                  p~.~ ,~. ~wi

        . ~ A~ o ,uo . ~g


    The claim is sustnissed.


                    Aebsxt 8. Hasria

                    Chairman and Nssstral Member


    for the Carrier Far the Orqani.zatioa


JacScsonvill· FL, ~/ s . 1 $96_