Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

Docket 31804

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

FIRST DIVISION

39 South La Salle Street, Chicago 3, Illinois

PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN

SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: “Claim of Yardman W. A. Baker for restoration to the service with seniority unimpaired and pay for all time lost account being dismissed from the service for his alleged violation of Rule G on November 15, 1951."

FINDINGS: The First Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that the parties herein are carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Division has jurisdiction.

Hearing was waived.

The transcript of the investigation contains testimony of four witnesses evidencing an admission by the claimant that he was guilty as charged. This evidence is neither controverted nor denied by the claimant and there is, therefore, no basis for a sustaining award. AWARD: Claim denied.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of FIRST DIVISION
ATTEST: (Signed) J. M. MacLeod

Executive Secretary

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 12th day of November, 1954.

Docket 27148

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

FIRST DIVISION

39 South La Salle Street, Chicago 3, Illinois

With Roforo. Charles Loring

PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN

AND ENGINEMEN

CHICAGO, BURLINGTON AND QUINCY RAILROAD

COMPANY

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of Engineer W. H. Kamps and Fireman C. V. Fellows, North St. Louis, Missouri yard, for eight hours account of East Hannibal Division road crew completing their train by doubling head end of train No. 61 from No. 6 track outbound yard to train lead track Jangary 6, 1950."

EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On January 6, 1950, East Hannibal Division road crew with diesel-electric unit 161 coupled onto No. 6 outbound yard, North St. Louis, Missouri, then doubled onto train lead track, thereby completing their train. Train lead track holds approximately 78 cars, No. 1 approximately 75 cars, and the balance of the tracks in the outbound yard up to and including No. 17 hold approximately 40 cars. Train No. 61 on January 6, 1950 consisted of 120 cars. The regular procedure in making up all trains in outbound yard is making them up complete regardless of the consist by shoving out on No. 4 yard running track. Engineer W. H. Kamps and Fireman C. V. Fellows were standing first out on their respective extra lists.

POSITION OF EMPLOYES: Claim is supported by Agreement effective January 10, 1941, reading in part:

"ARTICLE 1

"(c) If road freight engine crews are required to switch at points where yard crew is on duty in circumstances other than described in Paragraph (a) and first section of Paragraph (g) of this Article, they will be compensated for such service at not less than a minimum day at yard rate, independent of compensation for any other service performed and the engineer and fireman first out on the extra list protecting such work, will also be paid not less than a minimum yard day."

Your Board will note from the Statement of Facts that the regular procedure in making up trains in the North St. Louis Yard is to use the No. 4

yard running track which extends southward from the other tracks in the outbound yard.

We do not agree with the statement made by the Superintendent of Terminals that it was impossible to make the train up in the usual manner account of the switches being frozen. Our position in this respect is supported by Local Chairman Hoff's letter to Mr. A. F. McKelvie dated January 25, 1950, which is attached as Employes Exhibit No. 1.

The committee holds that the train on the date in question could have been made up in the same manner which had been the practice prior to date of claim. We further contend that the move made on January 6, 1950, was made for convenience in yard switching; and our position in this respect is sustained by Award 2458, wherein the Board, without a referee, sustained a claim on that point. The Findings in Award 2458 read:

“... It is therefore held that the movement made was for convenience in yard switching, and such moves have heretoforo been held to be yard switching; therefore, claim is valid. (Emphasis supplied.)

“Award

“Claim sustained.” In view of the facts and circumstances in this case and the sustaining Awards by your Board where moves were made for convenience in yard switching, the only decision the Board can consistently render is a sustaining Award.

The committee affirmatively asserts that all data herein and herewith submitted has been previously submitted to the Carrier, and claim has been handled in accordance with the procedural provisions of the Railway Labor Act.

CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: On January 6, 1950, an East Hannibal Division road crew ordered on duty at 9:00 P. M. for train No. 61, consisting of 120 cars, doubled their train from No. 6 track, in the outbound yard to the train lead track prior to departure from North St. Louis. The train lead track, partially paralleling the outbound yard, holds approximately 78 cars. Track No. 1 in the outbound yard has a capacity of approximately 75 cars, and the remaining tracks in the outbound yard hold approximately 40 cars each.

When conditions permit, outbound trains departing from North St. Louis which exceed the capacity of any single track in the outbound yard are generally made up on the train lead track and shoved out onto No. 4 yard running track extending southward from the outbound train yard in order to avoid the delay incident to doubling over prior to departure. This handling was not feasible on the date in question because the East Yard No. 1 track switch off No. 4 yard running track was frozen and inoperative, necessitating the use of No. 4 yard running track by a foreign line crew delivering cars for train No. 61 and returning via the same route.

The claimants named herein hold seniority in St. Louis Terminal and were first out on the engineers' and firemen's extra lists at the time the road crew doubled their train together.

POSITION OF CARRIER: The Employes party to this dispute are contending that it was possible to make up train No. 61 on the date of claim in such manner as to avoid the necessity of the road crew doubling over; that the double-over was a movement made for convenience in yard switching; and that the claimant extra engineer and fireman are therefore entitled to eight hours' pay by reason of the road crew doubling their train together.

« AnteriorContinuar »