CASE ::0. 8

                                              FILE T-1793


?AR; _.S C."ROT~ECd00D OF RA;LROAD TRAINMEN
                versus `

D:S? ,:':E. -..E COLORADO A\D SOUTHERN RA!LWAY COMPANY

 S-AT=Y.E\T Claim, of Conductor J. V. Dietz, Brakemen C. C. Adams and E. I.
 OF CLAIM: :;uilen, Denver, for payment of 100 miles at local rate, in addi
 tion to current allowances December 7 and 11, 1965, predicated
 c.^. ,.._, allegation that the claimant train crew was required,
 whsle operating on t'.^,e Denver-Loveland turn-around local on the
 two claim dates, to make a "side trip" in performance of station
 swl'tching on the station track at Mile Post 62.35, .sometimes re
 ferred to as "Walt".

 F;\01\GS: Claimants were called to operate the Denver-Loveland wayfreight
 wit~.instruction "to handle local work Denver to Loveland and return as di
 rected by Dispatcher and Agent's lists". After arrival at Loveland, the Agent
 there gave them list requiring them to pick up load at Wait, a point on the
 Arkins Branch, also called the Wilds Spur Branch. Claim is made for addition
 al 100 miles on each date under Letter Agreement dated August 23, 1948, amend
 ing Rule 15, and as here pertiient, reading:

        "!t is also agreed that chain gang crews required to make side trips, except in emergencies, will be paid 100 miles in addition to the mileage of the trip, unless before they leave the terminal they are notified that they will make the side trip."


Carrier first asserts that the case is barred by the one-year time li--,it rule. Claim was declined by the highest officer by letter dated May 6, 1966. Request to extend the time limit was denied and, by letter dated May .6, 1967, to the highest officer, the General Chairman. sought estab.lishment of a Special Public Law Board for the purpose of dispo's'ing of this and other listed claims. This letter was inartificially composed in' expressing a-"desire" instead of a request for such Board but it stated.that it.was served under provisions of the Railway Labof Act and its intent,,was plain to comply with the statutory requirements. This Law Board was established by mutual agreement of the parties pursuant to that letter. The statutes should be given a liberal interpretation and we think the letter was sufficient.: It was dated May 6, ?967, and the claim had been declined by the highest officer in :setter dated May
 0'
 1566, and constituted the institution of,proeeedings for final disposition
 of the clalm.within one year from the 4.te,=afthe hi gesofflois decision.
                . _, ,,f. A'

                          - 2 ^ !PUS N0. -) 1


                                            AWARD N0. 8

                                            CASE N0. 8

                                            FILE T-1793


Czrrier urges that Walt was within the switching limits of Loveland c;d switching on the Wilds Spur Branch was industrial switching rather than a sr trip There are no identified switching limits at Loveland. The Arkins, cr tdilcs Spur Branch, formerly extended westerly five miles or more from Love-
 . .,..t it was put out of service beyond Mile Post 63.35 in July, 1965. Walt is one c' t'.^,e listed stations on the branch at Mile Post 62.35. No industry is sio~.wn to 1)e located there and previously it was not considered a part of Loveland's soutnarn district.

 ';!^en clair_ant crews received instructions to proceed on the branch line to Wa:t, they were issued Clearance Form A, constituting authority to occupy -,;e Wilds Spur Branch and they were allowed time on their regular time si:ps .-"or doing the work there. Work on the Wilds Spur Branch had not been Loveiand switcning service. A bulletin was posted on August 2, 1966, nearly eight months after date of this claim, that Denver Division Timetable No. 2 is modifiea, as follows:

        "Wilds Spur is discontinued. Walt and Rist are designated as

        industrial trackage at Loveland, Colorado, and Clearance Form

        A is not required at Loveland for switching this industrial

        trackage". (Carrier's Exhibit B).


Such bulletin could not effect the status of the work prior to its posting.

 Carrier,further urges that the message given claimants at Denver before departure to handle local work as directed by Dispatcher and Agents' lists constituted notice of any side trip which was on the Agents' list tb,ey would receive at Loveland. We cannot concur in this contention.

 AWARD: Claim sustained.

                    PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 71


                    ./,.~

                    Mortimer tone, ha~rman


                                                f

R 211
      Woife, Carr Member . H. Shepher , Employee Member


Denver, Colorado, Nove_oar/j=, 1967.