. r ~ lo- t
 v -. n




















..

 FINDINGS:
 ' The Board upon the whole record and all the evidence finds that the employees
 and the Carrier are employees and Carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act,.
 as amended, 45 U.S.C. §§ 15I, et sea. The Board also finds it has jurisdiction to decide
 the dispute in this case. The Board further finds that the parties to the dispute; including
 Claimants, were given due notice of the hearing in this case.
 By way of background, prior to the Carrier's formation in 1986 its territory was
 gait of the Illinois Central Gulf Railroad (ICGj.lrnown as the Kentucky Division. In 1986
 that territory was purchased from the ICG and became the Carrier. The Organization and
 the Carrier negotiated a schedule agreement covering Conductors and Brakemen the .
 pertinent portions of which changed the basis for compensation from mileage and
 arbitraries to a daily and hourly rate of pay higher than the basic pay on the ICG. The .
 agreement also reflected a change with respect to the performance~of yard service. On
 the ICG that service had been performed by yard crews. Under the schedule agreement
 between the Carrier and the Organization yard service was to be performed by road '
 switcher assignments.
 ° Prior to June 14, 1996 the Carrier maintained three road switcher assignments at
 Paducah. On that date the Carrier abolished one of the three assignments and thereafter
 used local freight assignments to perform some general switching duties within the
 terminal limits~of Paducah including the servicing of industrial customers. By so doing
 . ` FL 8 I~s~- 5~f~3


    3 the Carrier was able to utilize twelve hour local freight assignments at straight time pay rather than one of the remaining eight hour road switcher assignments at overtime pay.

    The Organization's theory in support of the claim in this case is that Claimants performed two classes of service on the claim dates and therefore are entitled to the additional compensation sought in the claim. Specifically, the Organization argues that Claimants were assigned to local freight service on the claim dazes but that the work they were required to perform in the Paducah Terminal constituted yard service. In support of its position the Organization cites Rules 50 (Rates of Pay) and 15 (Work Week of Assignments) and Letter No. 3 of the applicable schedule agreement.

    At the outset the Carrier argots that the claim in this case as well as the time slips for the dates involved are impermissibly vague gird imprecise and thus must be dismissed. . With respect to the merits the Carrier emphasizes that there are no switching limits on 'this property and argues that there are no restrictions in the applicable schedule agreement dividing work assignments among different crews. Accordingly, urges the Carrier, the Organization has failed to sustain its burden of proof which requires that the claim be dismissed. .

    After a thorough analysis of the claim in this case and the respective time slips for the claim dates upon which it is based, we cannot agree with the Carrier that the claim or the time slips are so vague and imprecise as to require dismissal. The claim specifies the basis therefor, 1..c.,, Claimants' performance of ,road switcher service while Claimants were assigned to local freight service. All time slips for the claim dates except July 17,

                                                      BLS ND-S49?

    ' .Arms r~ .~a 31


        1997 clearly state that the basis therefor is Claimants' performance as .a local freight assignment of yard switching in violation of Rule 15 of and Letter No. 3 of the applicable schedule agreement. The time slip for July 17 states that it is for the performance of switching in the Paducah Yard and describes the yard work allegedly performed. The time slips for November 1, 1996 and March 29, 1997 also detail the yard. work allegedly performed. The time slip for July 15, 1997 indicates that there was a report attached thereto describing the yard work allegedly performed. However, the record does not contain that report.

      Whether a claim is defectively vague or imprecise depends upon the terminology . of the claim and the supporting data. In this case we believe the terminology of the claim and the supporting time slips is clear and fairly apprized the Carrier of the nature of the claim and the alleged basis therefor.

      Rule 50 provides different daily and hourly rates of compensation for employees in local and express freight service on the one hand and road switcher service on the . other. Moreover, the rule provides that all time worked in road switcher service in excess of eight hours shall be paid for as overtime. While neither Rule 50 nor any other rule . cited to this Board provides that local and express freight service is a. twelve hour assignment beyond which overtime is to be paid, the parties agree that such is the case.


          Rule IS(f) provides that "[T]he Carrier shall not abolish or annul road switcher


. t assignments and operate or establish local assignments in lieu thereof subject to the

      provisions of Letter No. 6 dated July 10, 1986."

                                                fGp ND- 5Y83 ~c,u P ND - 31


                            _5_

Letter No. 6, now Letter No. 3 to the current applicable schedule agreement, confirmed the understanding ". . . that the Carrier does intend to utilize road switchers in lieu of yard engines at Paducah and Louisville:' The letter also provided that three w specified road switchers would be converted to local service but that beyond those three ". . . the Carrier will not replace road switchers now operating on the ICG or additional road switchers to be established on the P&L Railway with local assignments."
 Thus, while the applicable schedule agreement may not contain specific switching limits or reserve specific work to any class of service, the agreement clearly distinguishes between local/express service on the one hand and road switcher service on the other. Rule 50 provides different daily and hourly rates of pay for both. Rule 50 also effectively provides that road switcher assignments shall work eight hours. The agreement further provides that local/express freight assignments work twelve hours. Rule 15(f) clearly contemplates that the Carrier will not substitute local freight assignments for road switcher assignments which frorn'the Carrier's inception of its operations have been utilized to perform yard service. Additionally, the Carrier's Timetable No. 2 effective January 1, 1996 sets the "Yard Limits" for Paducah Yard between MP 221.0 and MP 226.0:
 We believe the record in this case forces the conclusion that what the Carrier did on the claim dates with respect to the involved local freight assignments was to force them to perform two classes of service under t7~e applicable schedule agreement. In the final analysis we must conclude that the Organization has sustained its burden of proof
                                                  ~'ca Nj . sq 53

'- .~wp m-N. 31

                              .(_

      with respect to the claim in this case, that the claim has merit and that the compensation

      sought by the claim is appropriate.


                            AWARD

        Claim sustained. The Carrier will make this award effective within thirty days of the date hereof.


' W _ ~

William E. Fredenberger, JrJr.
 Chairman and Neutral Member

 JC. ' h rd B. RWigent
 r ber Employee Member

 DATED:

 . 2_ q_o\CI\ -.