SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 894
BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS


CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION
 "Carrier"

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM
Case No. 1412

 Award No. 1412

 System Docket CRE-11821

 Claim of Engineer J. E. Adimey for payment of one (1) hour and five (5) minutes additional Final Terminal Delay (FTD) payment while covering Train OPSE-8 on March 8, 1988 in accordance with Article R-c-2.

 OPINION OF THE BOARD

On the date of claim, Claimant was the engineer on train OPSE-8 operating in through freight service from Oak Point, New York to Selkirk, New York. On his time card for the day, Claimant reported his engine reaching the final terminal delay point, CP-SK, at 5:50 a.m. According to Carrier, Claimant's train arrived at the advanced signal governing movement to CP-SK at 5:50 a.m., but did not actually pass through CP-SK until 8:11 a.m. Claimant signed off duty at 8:30 a.m. Claimant then submitted a claim for one hour forty minutes final terminal delay payment. Carrier ultimately granted Claimant payment of 35


minutes final terminal delay,

 remainder one hour and five minutes.

 but denied the

 claim for the

 The Organization then







Article V - Final Terminal Delay, Freight Service of Award of Arbitration Board No. 458 states in part as follows:.



584 ~'e. 8'?4 -Awo .uo- t Yla

In addition, Letter 3A concerning Section 1 of Arbitration Board No. 458 states as follows:


    On the other hand, the Carriers were concerned that the term "deliberately delayed" not be construed in such a manner as to include time when crews were held between the last siding or station and the point where final terminal delay begins because of typical railroad operations, emergency conditions, or appropriate managerial decisions. A number of examples were cited including, among others, situations where a train is stopped; to allow another train to run around it; for a crew to check for hot boxes or defective equipment; for a crew to switch a plant; at a red signal (except if stopped because of a preceding train which has arrived at final terminal delay point and is on final terminal time, the time of .such delay by the crew so stopped will be calculated as final terminal delay); because of track or signal maintenance or construction work; to allow an outbound train to come out of the yard; and because of a derailment inside the yard which prevents the train held from being yarded on the desired track, e.g., the receiving track. We agreed that Section 1 did not comprehend such conditions.


The Organization contends that as Claimant's train was at CP-SK at 5:50 a.m., and was held behind other trains, he is


t to the

asserts alleged trains


on asserts

 n or the

 outbound

 and there

was simply no room in Selkirk Yard for receiving the inbound trains.


      Carrier asserts that as Claimant's train had not actually


e

 il

 entitled to the final terminal delay sought pursuant

 provisions of Article R-c-2. Moreover, the organization

 that Carrier has never provided it with a copy of th records demonstrating that train OPSE-8 !'was held unt TV-19 and TV-8B departed Selkirk Yard."

 that these trains had no bearing on preceding trains that were stopped in

 trains depart via a -different yard than inbound trains,

 The organization

 Claimant's train

 front of it, as
                                58,4 No. gr4 -Aw4 .vo ~IYI~


reached the final terminal delay point of CP-SK until 8:11 a.m., the provisions of Article V of Arbitration Board No. 458 are not applicable to the instant case. Carrier also contends that as established by Letter 3A, the term "deliberately delayed" in Article V, Section 1 of Arbitration Board No. 458 does not include an inbound train that is being held to allow an outbound train to come out of the yard or to allow another train destined to the same yard to run around the first train.


    The Board has determined that the claim must be sustained.

Initially, it must be noted that the Board has not considered the procedural argument originally raised by carrier. More specifically, Carrier at first argued that the Board may not have jurisdiction to hear this case. Thereafter, without prejudice to its position, Carrier withdrew that argument and requested that the Board render a decision in this case on its merits.

As to those merits, the Organization has persuasively argued that Article R-c-2, when viewed within the context of Article V of Arbitration Board No. 458, provides for payment of FTD if an engineer is held from entering the yard by a preceding train under circumstances such as are here present. More specifically, the Organization has established that claimant was unable to yard his train because he was stopped behind inbound train TTSE-8, LDSE-7, and PYSE-7 at CP-SK. Although Carrier contends that Claimant's train was held to allow outbound Trains TV-10 and TV8B to operate through the interlocking onto the main track, the


                          4

                                SBA AJc~ ~ E3175'- AcvO ,vo- / <//~.


Hoard finds insufficient evidence in the record developed on the property to support this contention and Carrier's subsequent conclusion that the claim should be denied.

      Accordingly, the Board finds that the claim should be


sustained.
 0

 SWARD
      Claim sustained. Money owed to be paid within thirty days.


R. W. Godw n, ,
 Organizat' n Mem s~-- Carrier Member

                S. E. Buchheit,

                Neutral Member


7 ~y-9.s-

 s

 t