SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 894
BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS


CONSOLIDATED RAZZ CORPORATION
 "Carrier"

 STTATEMENT OF CLAIM

 Case No. 1517

 Award No. 1517

 The claim of Engineer D. J. Albert for one day's pay at yard rate for being required to operate an engine not equipped with an accurate speed indicator on February 22, 1986, Article G-m-7(j).

 BLE File No: F-E-76-752-86 System Docket No: CRE-9256 Northeastern Region Case 03-86-M-0097

 OPINION OF THE BOARD

on the date of claim, February 22, 1986, the Claimant, Engineer D. J. Albert, was the assigned Engineer on Traveling Road Snitcher assignment WVHC-91, reporting for duty at Croton, Hew York at 12:01 p.m. Claimant was assigned Engines 95279333, neither of which was equipped with a speed indicator. Claimant advised Train Master J. Dziegalewski that the engines ware not properly equipped in accordance with the Agreement. Dziegelewaki ordered Claimant to work with the engines the way they were for his entire tour of duty. Claimant complied with Dziegelewaki's instructions but submitted a penalty timeslip claiming one day pay for being required to work with an angina

. ~B 4 No ~ Sq y A WD N0. I 5 ~ '7
 that was not properly equipped in accordance with Article G-m-7
 (equipment on engines), which states in relevant part as follows:

Carrier contends that as the express terms of Article G-m-7(j) refer to road type locomotives, it is here inapplicable, as engines 9527 and 9533 are yard switching locomotives used in traveling road switcher service. According to Carrier, there are no restrictions prohibiting the use o! yard engines in road service. With respect to the matter of additional compensation, Carrier submits that the penalty demanded by the Organization, an additional day of pay, is not authorized by Article G-m-7, and that where no penalty exists in the collective Bargaining Agreement the Board must first conclude that the Carrier has been guilty of willful and wanton misconduct before assessing such a penalty. In addition, Carrier contends that should some psnal~ty be assessed, in prior Awards sustained claims have resulted in one hour of pay being assessed rather than the eight hours claimed.

The organization asserts that the facts of Award Nos. 1336 and 1224 of SBA No. 894 are exactly the same a: the facts in the instant case, and that Carrier did not raise any different position on the property !or this claim than what was raised in these two previously decided cases. According to the organization, the principle that was sustained in Award Nos. 1224 and 1336 was clearly justified, and there is no reason why this Hoard should not issue a sustaining Award in the instant claim. 2


Mile the organization had sought to settle this claim with two hours pay, as the case was not settled eight hours ' pay is the appropriate remedy.


This claim is factually identical to that of Special Board
 o! Adjustment No. 894, Award No. 1336. That Award sustained the
 Organization's position and awarded Claimant a payment of two (2)
 hours pay because he was ordered to operate a 9500 series engine
 which vas not equipped with an operative speed indicator. In
 that Award it was determined that due to the facts and
 circumstances of the territory worked, the yard locomotive was
 considered converted to "Road Type Use". Notwithstanding
 Carrier's dissent to Award No. 1336 and arguments in the instant
 case, as well as the Organization's dissent to the remedy in
 Award No. 1336 and arguments in the instant case, this Board
 finds that Award No. 1336 is controlling of the instant case ; as
 to both outcome and remedy. Claimant is therefore entitled to
 payment of two hours for February 22, 1986.

 3

AWARD
 Claim sustained !or payment o! two hours. Carrier shall comply with this Award within 30 days.

                  000.

                    61

    Cisation Member Carrier Member $A MW"

    '~6t t~P:suh~l ?, t~t? .

    S. E. Buchheit,

    Neutral Member


4