The claim of Engineer P. E. Schilling for payment of one (1j day at yard rata for operating an engine consist without an operative speed indicator on August 13, 1986 at Oak Point, New York, Article G-m-7(j).

BLE File No: F-F-264-752-86

System Docket No: CRE-9718

Northeastern Region Case 03-86-M-0312

On the date of claim, August 13, 1986, the Claimant, Engineer P. E. Schilling, was the assigned Engineer on Traveling Road Switcher assignment WVOP-20, reporting for duty at Oak Point, New York at 7:30 p.m. Claimant was assigned Unit 9508, which vas not equipped with a speed indicator. Claimant was also assigned Units 1914 and 1915 as his locomotive consist for August 13. Hs used these three locomotive units during his entire tour of duty on that date. According to the organization, Claimant advised Yard Master N. W. Lewis that engine 9508 was not properly equipped with a speed indicator in accordance with the Agreement but Yard Master Lewis ordered Claimant to work with the engines

58A N6.354 Awp 1No. 1s(8

the way they were for his entire tour of duty. Claimant subsequently submitted a penalty time slip claiming one day of pay for being required to work with an engine that was not properly equipped in accordance with Article G-m-7 (equipment on engines), which states in relevant part as follows:

(j) Road type locomotives shall be equipped with an accurate speed indicator

Carrier contends that as the express terms of Article G-m-9(j) refer to road type locomotives, it is here inapplicable, and unit 9508 is a yard switching locomotive. According to Carrier, there are no restrictions prohibiting the use of yard engines in road territory or for travelling switcher service. Furthermore, by way of rebuttal, carrier contends that if Claimant deemed ft necessary that he use a road type locomotive that was equipped with an accurate speed indicator on the date of claim, he simply had to request permission to rearrange his locomotive consist ;so that road freight diesel unit 1914 or 1915 would be the lead.unit in his consist. As he did not do this, the Carrier contends that he forfeited any right to this claim. 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 6-m-7, and that where no penalty exists in

the Collective Bargaining Agreement the Hoard must first conclude

that the Carrier has been guilty of willful and wanton misconduct

before assessing ouch a penalty. In addition. Carrier contends

that should some penalty be assessed, in prior Awards sustained

claims have resulted in one hour of pay being assessed rather

2

The Board has determined that the claim must be sustained.