SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0.
287
PARTIES: BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
and
THE BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY
AWARD IN DOCKET N0.
17
STATEMENT
OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier was in violation of the agreement for the period
beginning on March
4, 1957,
and continuing through April
23, 1957,
when it assigned
other than B&B forces to flag for and protect B&B forces and equipment being used
on a B&B project just east of Madison Road, Oakley, Ohio.
(2)
B&B employees James W. Wilt and Raymond Collins each be allowed
pay at his respective straight time rate for an equal proportionate share of the
total man hours consumed by other than B&B forces in performing the work referred
to in Part (1) of this claim."
FINDINGS: Here we have a situation where B&B forces are driving pile for the
construction of a highway underpass under Carrier's tracks in its yard at Oakley,
Ohio, Cincinnati Terminal. From the time each pile was positioned for driving until
it was driven or cut off, the main tracks were blocked.
Carrier states:
"Therefore, it was necessary to place a telegraph
operator at the bridge site to secure permission
from the Train Dispatcher to block the track each
time a pile was to be driven. Approaching trains
were furnished with train orders and two flagmen
taken from the ranks of the trainmen (yard trainmen) were placed at the scene under the direction
of the operator to protect such trains and authorize
their movement through the area
upon
advice from the
operator that the route was clear."
The Organization here relies
on
Award
7960.
Carrier argues "the only
purpose involved for the assignment of the flagmen was to protect the operation of
trains in territory where tracks were being periodically blocked and fouled by a
crawler crane and the piles it was driving. Section men or B&B forces had never
been assigned to perform flagging at this point. There was no connection whatever
between the assignments of the B&B forces and those of the yardmen-flagmen. x x x"
We cannot accept Carrier theory that the only purpose for the assignment of the flagmen "was to protect the operation of trains."
Admittedly the pile driving work blocked the tracks at times, which,
of course, stopped the operation of the trains. The prime purpose for flagging in
this instance, stemming as it did from the work then being done by B&B forces, was
saA a$~
to indicate at what points such B&B work would block the tracks, and at what point
such work would permit of the passage of trains. Such flagging was also for the
purpose of protecting the B&B equipment and the B&B men working on the project from
danger. We are not concerned with what Carrier did, or by what means, after the
B&B project reached a stage where its trains could move without impediment from the
B&B work then in progress.
Award
7960
found that claimants there had been assigned to "keep the
then existing tracks free of earth or other material that might fall from the new
grade." In other words, their assignment as trackmen was to keep the tracks passable
for trains. Flagging service was a necessary protection when such tracks were not
passable.
Here, B&B men were assigned to do pile driving work which, at times,
made these tracks impassable. Flagging service was a necessary protection when such
tracks were not passable. The cycle of the B&B work in progresswas under the
direction of B&B supervision.
Flagging is a task performed by and required of many classes of railroad employees and is not the exclusive function of any particular class.
Carrier brief states:
"As in the case of many employees on this property
other than trainmen, employees coming under the scope
of the Maintenance of Way Agreement can, as the occasion demands, be required to perform flagging, e.g.,
for the protection of their motor cars, etc. x x x"
We think, from the facts here, this was an occasion which required
that the flagging be done by B&B men. It was an integral and necessary part of the
B&B work then in progress.
We will, therefore, sustain part (1) of the claim.
We will not sustain part (2) of the claim for two reasons:
1. Both claimants, Wilt and Collins, were working at this point
during this time.
2. There is no showing here that claimants had been examined on
and satisfactorily passed an examination on flagging rules, as
in Award
7960.
AWARD
Part (1) of claim sustained.
Part (2) of claim denied for reasons set forth in Findings.
(s) Edward A. Lynch
(s) A. J. Cunningham Ch(s) T. S. Woods
Employee Member - Carrier Member
Dated at Baltimore, Md., this 28th day of March,
1960.