SPECIAL 3CA.M OF ADJM T':F:T M. 396

                        THE f3aCTFMHCc-''D CF RAILRO:aD TRALN:2Ti


                  TV.E NE4 Ym;, DIE;J 4AVE! AND HARTFORD RAILRY,T` CC6MANY


            STA'MMM7 OF CLAIM:

            Claim of '4orcester Yard Bra1~emm "nssarelli and Rankin for tine day, February 3 and 4, 1958 In Worcester Yard.


            OPINION OF BOAFD:

            On. the dates of the claim surveyors employed by the State of Massachusetts were surveying on the Carrier's prcoperty, en or near the right of way. On each day they were on the property somewhat less than


. one hour. The Carrier states that surveyors checked with the rperato'r
            at Hope Avenue who advised that there were no trains due and no need for

            flag protection.

            The theory of the instant claim is that the atrve-named cTaimanta

            should have beg: a<_ed nn the suriect dates to nPrfons flan nmtectien

            for the s The Carrier contends that it is the sole iudpe of

            whether flag protection is needed and such protection was not needed

            on the occasions here involved.

            The contract provision cited in behalf of this claim (Rule 598 of the 1'ediation Agreenent dated Decalber 19, 1956) states: "If a flnrpnn is


            called by the Comy . . . .'~ This provision does not declare that


_ Management must call a flagrran under speeifiud circ:nstances. Yc:reover,
            numerous previous decisions on the property have held that it is for the .


            I Carrier to determine whether flag protection is required.

i

 . 1

 _. . 588 No . 391 o
 A WD NO. 90
                                          AWARD N0. 90


AWARD:
        claim denied.


o H, filer, Neutral Diember '
 - crge . C Em oye ?? J. J. Duffer Carrier t.anber

 New Haven, Connecticut April. 29, 1964

 .2_

                  58~ Na·346 Awa #-*

                        · 9n