4(93-15221
PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 5907
Case No. 3
Award No. 3
United Transportation Union ) PARTIES
TO
CSX Transportation, Inc. ) DISPUTE
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
Conductor T.P. Queen, ID 088658, and Brakeman T.W. Halcomb,
ID 079165, claiming one yard day at Hamilton, Ohio on D-742-03;
claim date 6/3/93. __
FINDINGS
This Board finds the parties herein are carrier and Employee
within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that
this Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein. The
parties to said dispute were given due and proper notice of
hearing thereon.
Claimants were assigned to 1st C&D Switcher operating from
Middletown, Ohio to Hamilton, Ohio and return. On the claim date
when the crew arrived at Hamilton they left their engine in New
River Yard. The claimants were taxied to MP25 where they got
another engine and eight cars. The crew returned to New River
Yard placing the engine and cars on Track No. 1. A yard assignment was on duty at the time the work was performed.
The organization takes the position that the work done by
the Claimants violated Schedule Agreement Rule 704.
The carrier argues the work performed is permissible without
additional compensation. It avers the October 31, 1985 National
Agreement as amended by PEB 219 permits such work to be done.
In Award No. 81 of Public Law Board No. 4975 involving the
same parties the Board sustained the claim in which similar work
was performed. In that Award the Board held:
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.
The carrier has cited several cases which might be
interpreted as reaching a different result. To the
extent such cases found that work need not be in
jq-13 No
. 5-909
two
am 3
connection with the road craw's own assignment, such
decisions are not consistent with the intent of aEB
219.
The Board finds no reason to deviate from the above
findings.
AWARD
Claim sustained. Carrier will comply with the award within
34 days from its date-
9A. chter, Chairman
H.S. Emerick,;Carr~ ~3Mem b~ J_T ed, Em oyee Member
Dated
S~l . `'l, X997
CARRIER MEMBER'S DISSENT TO AWARD NO. 3
PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 5907
A review of the submission filed in this case discloses that the claimants were
transported by taxi from Middletown to Hamilton on the claim date. The claimants
did not operate a train to Hamilton. This fact was apparently unclear in the
carrier's "statement of facts. " At Hamilton, they picked up their operating unit and
proceeded to perform industrial switching; therefore, the facts contained in the
Award are not correct.
The Organization furnished the Neutral with a copy of Award No. 81 of PLB
No.4975 after the hearing which apparently added further confusion to the Board.
Award No.81 involved the claim of yardmen who were first and second out on the
yard extra board at Hamlet that they should have been called to perform yard work
that was performed instead by a road crew. After the road crew had reported for
duty, they were transported to another yard in Hamlet Terminal and instructed to
get a set of yard hump engines, proceed to another location in that terminal and
pull a train whose crew had expired under the Hours of Service Law into the
receiving yard at Hamlet. After yarding that train, the crew took the yard hump
engines to the diesel shop and, after being on duty for six and one-half hours,
picked up their outbound train and power and departed Hamlet on their road trip.
It is readily obvious that the instant case is distinguishable from Award No. 81.
Accordingly, we must treat this as a non-event due to the confusion of the
facts.
H. S. Emerick, Carrier Member