|
|||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||
|
Officials and Others Performing Service
Public Law Board No. 7140-Award 6
Neutral: David P. Twomey
Parties: UTU vs. CSX (SCL)
Award Date: 2010-01-13 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustained, Various held in abeyance. This case involves a crew whose time had expired under the Hours-of-Service Law. This incident came about after CSXT issued a System Bulletin 005 that if a train is tied up at a point outside of a terminal, and there are no derails, the crew had to look after the train. If a crew cannot look after the train, as required by System Bulletin 005, an officer was dispatched to perform this service.
In case at bar, CSXT sent a trainmaster to "look after" the train until a relief crew arrived. We progressed to arbitration a claim for five day's pay because the Company used one of its officers to perform our work. We declared that the "act" of looking after a train was worked that belonged to Conductors, thus, the Company could not use an officer to perform our scope work.
This was a very difficult case, as the Carrier argued that sitting on the train was not performing service; therefore, the officer did not perform any duty of a conductor. The Board disagreed. Professor Twomey, Chairman and Neutral member of the Board, did not allow the five day claim, but he did allow it for a basic day's pay; he held that the claim was not in the context of CSXT Labor Agreement 4-003-03, but a violation of seniority rights to service.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 5731-Award 133
Neutral: David P. Twomey
Parties: UTU v. Florida East Coast
Award Date: 2006-05-11 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of first-out extra engineer and conductor for a penalty day when a utility trainman assisted a NS crew with a reverse movement. The NS crew mistakenly entered a wrong track and the yardmaster instructed the utility trainman to assist with the reverse movement out of the track. The Board finds that the action of the utility trainman was narrowly confined to helping the NS crew out of the wrong track and not an assignment dedicated to assisting the NS crew make moves associated with the delivery and pick-up of interchange.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1977-Award 93
Neutral: Joseph A. Sickles
Parties: UTU vs. Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac
Award Date: 1998-05-18 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor for one day's pay, but denies claim of Brakeman. This claim arose because Carrier used an Assistant Trainmaster to fill out a yard crew until an extra employee could report for duty. In denying the claim of the brakeman, the Board holds in accordance with a prior award on the property. However, this award does not control the claim of the conductor and his claim must be sustained in view of the applicable rules on the property.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 4066-Award 4
Neutral: Joseph Lazar
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern
Award Date: 1987-08-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Yardman for one day at yard rates when not called to perform service. An outbound road crew departed the yard leaving behind an improperly aligned switch. Upon discovery of the problem, the Train Director requested that the Yardmaster realign the switch pursuant to the Operating Rule. The Board finds no evidence that the work performed by the Yardmaster expedited a switching move of a yard or road assignment in any way. Rather, it was to eliminate clear potential danger and, as such, did not constitute any rules violation.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 4237-Award 1
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU vs. Union Pacific
Award Date: 1987-05-04 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Foreman and Helpers for 47 days' pay when Carmen were instructed to bleed off 47 cars which were to be switched by Claimants. The Board finds from the facts and evidence from record that the bleeding of cars to be switched by a yard crew is work that belongs exclusively to yardmen. However, the claim of Claimants is denied due to their being improper Claimants and holds that the first out yardman was entitled to a day's pay. Thereafter, a dispute arose as to the payment to the first out yardman and the Board held that it had no authority to substitute a Claimant as this would constitute a change in the claim and present a different defense for the Carrier.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 4068-Award 35
Neutral: Arnold M. Zack
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Maine Central - Portland Terminal
Award Date: 1987-04-03 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor and Brakemen for 100 miles when a crew from a foreign Carrier performed service owing to Claimants. Carrier argues that the foreign crew had trackage rights over the area in question and therefore, no valid basis for the claim exits. The Board holds that the trackage rights provided for carry a traditional interpretation of "bridge" rights which do not permit the foreign crews to perform work properly belonging to crews of this Carrier.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3572-Award 23
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk and Western
Award Date: 1987-03-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Conductors and Brakemen for one day each date employees of a coal company performed switching. Carrier leased several tracks to the coal company so as to increase their storage capacity and then sold a locomotive to a leasing company which was part owner of the energy company and had mine employees switch cars. The Board finds that the mine company engine did not handle any cars other than those involved with the coal company and accordingly there is no basis for the claims submitted.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3869-Award 48
Neutral: Joseph A. Sickles
Parties: UTU vs. Houston Belt and Terminal
Award Date: 1987-02-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yard Foreman and Helpers for eight (8) hours' pay at pro rata rate when another yard crew performed transfer work properly belonging to Claimants. The Board finds that the Organization established a prima facia case that the work properly belonged to Claimants and it has not been rebutted by the Carrier.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3869-Award 50
Neutral: Joseph A. Sickles
Parties: UTU vs. Houston Belt and Terminal
Award Date: 1987-02-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yardmen for eight (8) hours' pay at pro rata rates when another crew performed their duties. Carrier contends that the work performed was done after Claimants were instructed to tie up and further, that Claimants have no right to perform outside their assigned hours. The Board finds that while Claimants have no rights to work on an overtime basis, due to the close time elements and the indication that there was an overlap of job performance, the Organization has set forth a prima facia case of job swapping and this claim is sustained accordingly.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3869-Award 51
Neutral: Joseph A. Sickles
Parties: UTU vs. Houston Belt and Terminal
Award Date: 1987-02-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Yardmen for eight (8) hours' pay. Claim is made due to Organization's contention that another crew performed the duties of Claimant and this was tantamount to job swapping. The Board finds no evidence of record to support this position and the claim is denied accordingly.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 4086-Award 1
Neutral: Jack W. Cassle
Parties: UTU-T vs. Galveston, Houston and Henderson
Award Date: 1986-12-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Engine Foreman and Helpers for eight (8) hours' pay at yard rates due to industry employees moving cars off Carrier's tracks and onto industry tracks. The Board finds from the record that an agreement in effect since 1949 permits the industry employees to make certain moves as those herein and the employees did not protest until the date of this claim. While the Board questions the right of the Carrier to enter into an agreement with the industry without knowledge of the Organization, the employees did not take timely action to challenge it and therefore are foreclosed, by the doctrine of estoppel by laches, from making claims against the provisions.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3953-Award 5
Neutral: Don B. Hays
Parties: UTU vs. Seaboard System Railroad
Award Date: 1986-11-25 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Outside Hostler and Helper for 8 hours' pay when not properly called for service. Due to a reduction in force, no hostlers were on duty at a time when a car inspector and an assistant car foreman performed tasks to prepare an engine for single unit operation. The Board finds that Claimants should have been called to perform this work and the appropriate remedy is to allow the 8 hour claim.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2049-Award 173
Neutral: Gene T. Ritter
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern
Award Date: 1985-11-12 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Yard Foreman and Helpers for one day's pay when assisted into the yard by a road crew. Claimants train stalled on the main line and a through freight, being operating by officials due to a CRI&P strike, shoved the yard crew into the yard. The Board holds that the through freight only shoved the yard crew to clear the main line.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2049-Award 171
Neutral: Gene T. Ritter
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern
Award Date: 1985-11-12 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claims of various Switchmen for one day's pay when Carrier officials were used to handle through freight trains due to a strike by employees of the former CRI&P. The Board holds that the Carrier properly used officials to move trains when employees would not cross picket lines and this was a freight movement, not a yard movement.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3054-Award 10
Neutral: Robert E. Peterson
Parties: UTU vs. Toledo, Peoria & Western
Award Date: 1984-04-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer, Conductor and Brakemen for 100 miles when an industry moved cars onto Carrier's main line. The Board finds sufficient evidence contained in the record to support the claim.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2709-Award 128
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Houston Belt & Terminal
Award Date: 1984-02-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yard Foreman and Helpers for eight (8) hours at the applicable punitive rate when their assignment was blanked on a holiday and another crew performed service in their assigned work area. The Board notes that the parties, subsequent to the date of claim, entered into an agreement to cover situations such as this. However, under the facts and circumstances this claim must be sustained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2709-Award 129
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Houston Belt & Terminal
Award Date: 1984-02-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yard Foreman and Helpers for eight (8) hours at the applicable punitive rate in accordance with the findings contained in Award No. 128.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1900-Award 23 & 24
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.
Award Date: 1984-01-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Conductor and crew for 150 miles on each claim date in lieu of compensation allowed. Because Claimants had insufficient rest under the Hours of Service Law, a pool freight crew was used to operate Claimants' train out of the away-from-home terminal. Claimants were later deadheaded to their home terminal. The Board finds nothing in the agreement prohibiting the Carrier from operating the trains in this manner and Claimants were properly compensated in accordance with the rules.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2946-Award 17
Neutral: A. Thomas Van Wart
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Southern Pacific Trans. Co. - T&L Lines
Award Date: 1983-10-07 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains in part the claim of Conductor and Brakemen for 100 miles on two (2) dates and denies such claim on additional dates. Claimants were first out for service when maintenance of way forces handled cars to and from their work cite, unloaded the cars and performed switching and main line work with a pile driver crane and no operating employees. The Board finds that neither party has advanced an abundance of documentation or evidence either for or against the claim. However, there is no question that the pile driver crane was operating in main line territory, it had picked up cars at the spur track, moved same to its work location, unloaded same and moved them back. Further, Organization asserts written proof of the fact that these movements were controlled by train orders on two (2) dates. Therefore, those two (2) claims are sustained and the other claims disallowed for lack of sufficient proof.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2678-Award 37
Neutral: Dana E. Eischen
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1983-06-13 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Yard Foreman and Helpers for one day's pay. Claimants contend that they were deprived of work when a road crew unloaded ties and crossing timbers within the confines of a yard. The Board finds that the rules, and a huge body of precedent awards, support the Carrier's use of the road crew and this claim must be denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2212-Award 4
Neutral: Irving T. Bergman
Parties: UTU vs. Portland Terminal RR Co.
Award Date: 1983-05-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of one (1) basic day for each crew member because of improper movement of cars by an industry's employees. The Board thoroughly reviews the many precedent awards cited by the parties and their agreements in support of their contentions. The Board holds that a violation of the agreement did occur when the industry's employees moved the cars and that such violation cannot be disregarded. Nevertheless, Claimants being on duty and under pay are not entitled to compensation.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2212-Award 26
Neutral: Irving T. Bergman
Parties: UTU vs. Portland Terminal Railroad
Award Date: 1983-05-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of first-out extra crew for one day's pay when a foreign carrier's crew assisted a transfer crew out of the yard. A foreign Carrier transfer crew picked up a cut of cars and a yard crew was standing by to assist, if necessary. In the meantime, a second transfer crew arrived with a cut of cars to be delivered and the yard crew was called to another location to perform service. The first transfer crew experienced engine failure and the second transfer crew attached to the rear of the train and assisted them out of the yard. The Board finds in favor of the Organization's contention that this work properly belonged to Carrier's yard crews and sustains the claim accordingly.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1977-Award 78
Neutral: Joseph A. Sickles
Parties: UTU vs. Richmond, Fredericksburg Potomac Railroad Co.
Award Date: 1983-04-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Conductor and Brakeman for one (1) day's pay because a road crew shoved cars in the clear. Claimant yard crew was on duty and under pay and contends that they were entitled to the work in question. The Board denies this claim on the basis of prior awards on this property by this Board, and finds that the road crew took action which is generally recognized as permissible.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2709-Award 121
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Houston Belt & Terminal
Award Date: 1983-02-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yard Foreman and Helpers for an additional eight (8) hours in addition to all other earnings when another crew performed their duties. Claimants were assigned to a transfer assignment and during their tour of duty another crew performed work properly belonging to Claimants. The Board holds in accordance with Award 12 of PLB 2289 on this property that this constituted job swapping.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1883-Award 57
Neutral: John B. Criswell
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Missouri Pacific RR Co.
Award Date: 1982-11-23 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of various yard crews on various dates for an additional yard day each. The Board finds that Claimants were deprived of transfer service which was performed by another yard crew outside the scope of their duties.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1977-Award 57
Neutral: Joseph A. Sickles
Parties: UTU vs. Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac RR Co.
Award Date: 1982-07-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor for one (1) day's pay at pilot rate. Organization asserts that an Assistant Trainmaster boarded a foreign Carrier's train and piloted same into Track No. 6. Carrier denies that Assistant Trainmaster acted as a pilot, rather the foreign Carrier crew was fully qualified to yard the train. The Board finds that in the early stages of use of this yard by foreign Carrier crews, Assistant Trainmasters were in abundance. This would tend to raise a permissible inference that the Trainmasters were performing some work of some productive nature and were not merely observers.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1977-Award 63
Neutral: Joseph A. Sickles
Parties: UTU vs. Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac RR Co.
Award Date: 1982-07-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yard Conductor and Brakemen for one (1) day's pay each, when a roundhouse employee boarded an engine in the yard and operated it to the roundhouse. The Carrier concedes that the roundhouse employee should not have operated the engine, but argues that Claimants would not necessarily have a claim to this work, because the handling of "live" engines is not work within the scope of the Yardman's Agreement. The Board finds that this Carrier has not established the rights to "live" versus "dead" engines on this property, as in the award cited for support, and limited solely to the procedural status of this case, the claim must be sustained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1977-Award 70
Neutral: Joseph A. Sickles
Parties: UTU vs. Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac RR Co.
Award Date: 1982-07-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor for one (1) day's pay at pilot rate in accordance with the findings contained in Award No. 57 of this Board.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1906-Award 291
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Terminal RR Association of St. Louis
Award Date: 1982-03-12 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of three (3) Switchmen for one (1) day's pay when Lead Crew #1 was annulled and the work performed by another crew. Claimants were extra board employees, and the record indicates that on the date of claim two (2) of them worked other assignments and the third man laid off. Further, claim is made on an assigned rest day of Lead Crew #1. The Board finds that Claimants were not necessarily entitled to perform this work and there is nothing in the agreement which gives them a preference for certain work.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1906-Award 292
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Terminal RR Association of St. Louis
Award Date: 1982-03-12 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim for three (3) Switchmen for a day's pay on the basis of the findings contained in Award No. 291 of this Board.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2859-Award 6
Neutral: A. Thomas Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk & Western Rwy. Co.
Award Date: 1982-03-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for one (1) penalty day when a Roundhouse Foreman spotted an engine for fueling. Claimant was first out on the Engineer's Extra List and contends he should have been used to perform this work since hostler positions had been abolished. The Board finds it is axiomatic in this industry that non-agreement personnel cannot perform the work of agreement personnel.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2678-Award 28
Neutral: Dana E. Eischen
Parties: (UTU-C&T vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1982-01-04 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Conductor and Trainmen for one day's pay when employees of a private contractor rerailed cars and handled switchers in order to clear a single main line track. Claimants contend they should have been called to move these cars, after they were rerailed, to a side track rather than having them handled by the crane crew. The Board holds in accordance with a nearly identical claim on this property that ". . . Article III of the June 25, 1964 National Agreement . . . governing self-propelled machines . . . limits its application to 'on-rail self-propelled machines.'" Such was not the case here.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2049-Award 51
Neutral: Gene T. Ritter
Parties: UTU vs. Fort Worth & Denver Ry. Co.
Award Date: 1981-10-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of first-out Switchman for one day's pay at the pro-rata rate and denies claim of the two Switchmen behind him on the extra board. The claim was based on the fact that an Assistant Superintendent assisted a road crew in doubling their train when he used his radio to give signals and call out car lengths in the performance of this doubling over. The Board finds that an award rendered on the property, as well as several other awards, support the position of the employees, however, the Board only sustains the claim for the first-out Switchman for the reason that only one claimant stood for the work involved in the dispute.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2851-Award 2
Neutral: Gene T. Ritter
Parties: UTU-T vs. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co.
Award Date: 1981-09-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claims for first out extra Conductors on first and second shifts on claim dates prior to June 6, 1980, when not called to perform flagging duties at a highway bridge construction site, and denies all similar claims after June 6, 1980, when flagging was no longer required. When construction began, Carrier put up a bulletin advising approaching trains and engines to be prepared to stop and proceed only on hand signal or radio instructions from Flagmen on the ground. However, on June 6, 1980, Carrier reissued the bulletin advising all trains and engines to approach this location at restricted speed, looking out for contractor's equipment working in the area.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 423-Award 249
Neutral: Robert A. Franden
Parties: UTU vs. Port Terminal Railroad Association
Award Date: 1981-09-01 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies the claims of three (3) Yardmen because Carrier officials performed switching at an industry. On the date of claim, Carrier officials worked as a crew in order to deliver cars to a refinery which was being picketed by employees of Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers. Claimants refused to cross the picket line set up at the refinery. The Board determines that the issue in this case is whether the Carrier is obligated to permit the crew to pick up cars in their yard, yet refuse to deliver the cars to the strikebound refinery. The Board finds that the Carrier is not obligated to separate the work junctions in order that they may complete the work with officers of the Carrier and that the Carrier acted properly in the instant matter.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2278-Award 3
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-S vs. Kansas City Terminal
Award Date: 1981-01-11 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claims of a day's pay for the senior available first out Switchman when a Yardmaster was performing Switchmen's work. On dates of claim, said Yardmaster was observed by crew members to be lining switches and giving instructions via handset radio. The employees contend that they have frequently complained about this Yardmaster performing work reserved to the yard employees and cite local settlements and awards in support thereof. The Board finds that, however well-intentioned the Yardmaster's efforts might have been, it created an unhealthy and unsafe environment and, although no extra crew member was needed to perform the work complained of, to ensure contract enforcement this claim will be sustained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2278-Award 4
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-S vs. Kansas City Terminal
Award Date: 1981-01-11 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of a day's pay for the senior available first out Switchman. The employees contend that the same Yardmaster, involved in Award No. 3 of this Board, gave an Engineer radio instructions to make a movement to pick up two (2) cars. In sustaining the claim, the Neutral finds merit in the Employees' complaint that the giving of a signal for the movement of a train is distinguished from giving permission to commence a movement.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2709-Award 8
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Houston Belt & Terminal
Award Date: 1981-01-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Yard Foreman and Helpers for an additional eight (8) hours at the applicable rate when they were tied up after working eight (8) hours and another assignment performed work which normally would have been performed by Claimants had they remained on duty. The Organization contends that after the Claimant crew had been on duty eight (8) hours, they were entitled to continue performing all of the work on that assignment on an overtime basis. The Neutral, however, holds that the Claimant crew is entitled to perform their work during the hours of their assignment, but they do not have the entitlement to perform work on an overtime basis.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 195-Award 1065
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: UTU-T vs. Grand Trunk Western
Award Date: 1980-10-01 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a yard crew for an additional day at the time and one-half rate when three passenger coaches, placed inside the roundhouse area by yard crews, were moved to the coach track by roundhouse personnel using a track mobile. The cars were moved to allow car department forces to service the cars. In sustaining the claim, the Board finds that while yard crews do not have exclusive jurisdiction to work in the roundhouse area, yardmen do have the right to control work such as performed here, that the moving of cars by one department for the benefit of another department is the work of yardmen.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 195-Award 1074
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: UTU-T vs. Grand Trunk Western
Award Date: 1980-10-01 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yard Conductor and Yard Brakemen for basic day at time and one-half rate when roundhouse forces moved three (3) coaches within the roundhouse area. In sustaining the claim, the Board finds the Carrier failed to meet the burden of proof the their contention that the coaches were moved to allow access to other tracks and the necessity of such movement.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2364-Award 14
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU-C,T&Y vs. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe
Award Date: 1980-04-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of a Yard Foreman and two helpers for payment of a day's pay in addition to other earnings when mechanical department employees moved a caboose with off-track equipment after retailing. This case involved a third party interest and the Carmens' Organization filed a Third Party Submission. The Board does not find sufficient precedent, practice or rule to support a finding that retailing the caboose was the exclusive work of Claimants. The Board does find, however, that the moving of the caboose was not an integral work of rerailing the caboose. It was not necessary in this case to move the caboose to rerail it and any movement of the caboose thereafter should have been performed by the yard crew which was available to make the move.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 195-Award 1063
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: UTU vs. Grand Trunk Western
Award Date: 1980-04-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of a Yard Crew for an additional basic day's pay at the overtime rate because of roundhouse personnel performing yard service. Claimants were members of an on-duty crew that filed the claim when roundhouse forces moved an empty car from coal dock track, that had been spotted there by a yard crew, to an outbound track. The Board finds that the movement of cars loaded with supplies into and out of the roundhouse area, is the work of yard crews. The Board held that the question of improper claimants was not timely raised and cannot be considered by the Board at this time.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2248-Award 1
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU vs. San Manuel Arizona RR Co.
Award Date: 1980-02-13 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of a crew for one (1) basic day each when the Carrier improperly used employees of another craft and class to complete the work shift of Claimants. The Board finds that ordinarily, the Carrier has a clear right to schedule the work in an economical manner so as to avoid unnecessary overtime. In this case, however, the agreement between the parties was executed for the purpose of preserving the equity of two groups of employees by alternating shifts, and that agreement was violated when the Carrier permitted other than Claimants to complete the work of their assignment.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2387-Award 6
Neutral: Robert J. Ables
Parties: UTU vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe
Award Date: 1980-01-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of an Extra Yardman for one (1) day's pay account of a Carman pulling a pin to uncouple cars on the instructions of a Yardmaster. Organization also contended that the Carrier failed to comply with agreement on processing claims. The Board finds that the coupling pin was improperly pulled by the Carman and sustained the claim, but there is no valid basis for the claim that the Carrier violated the agreement covering handling of time claims.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2089-Award 56
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway
Award Date: 1980-01-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of a Yard Helper for one (1) day's pay at yard rate when a Yardmaster assisted a yard crew by giving signals in the movement of a piece of maintenance of way equipment. The Board finds that the question of a Yardmaster passing signals and injecting themselves into the functions of ground crews has been the source of at least two Board Awards on this property. The Board concludes that the evidence tends to tilt in favor of the employee's contention and consequently sustains the claim.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1684-Award 52
Neutral: Murray M. Rohman
Parties: UTU vs. Illinois Central Gulf
Award Date: 1979-10-23 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Conductor for 200 miles, 100 miles' deadhead and 100 miles' pilot service, when not used to pilot two diesel units handled by a Traveling Engineer and a Trainmaster. The two diesel units involved had been taken from a train halted by a work stoppage at Water Valley and brought to Grenada where facilities for storing and caring for the diesel units were available. Upon termination of the strike, the Traveling Engineer and Trainmaster were used to handle two diesel units back to the train. The Carrier defended its use of the Trainmaster on the basis that the Rules do not require that they assign a pilot to a light engine movement. The Organization disputes Carrier's contention in this respect, but argued even if Carrier was correct, it would not justify the use of a Supervisor as a pilot in lieu of a conductor. The Board finds the Organization's position more persuasive and sustains the claim, but without precedent or prejudice.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1680-Award 24
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: UTU vs. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Rwy.
Award Date: 1979-10-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies the claim of a yardman for one day's pay on each of the 82 days a Maintenance of Way employee performed flagging service. During the time period involved, a new bridge, parallel to the old bridge, was under construction and Maintenance of Way personnel were used by the Carrier to provide flag protection for the trucks, bulldozers and other heavy equipment operating in and around the construction site. The Claimant contends that he should have been used on each of the 82 days instead of a Maintenance of Way flagman. The Board finds that there are numerous awards of the National Railroad Adjustment Board and Public Law Boards that have held that yardmen, by contract or practice, do not have the exclusive right to perform the work claimed under similar or analogous circumstances.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1680-Award 25
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: UTU vs. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Rwy.
Award Date: 1979-10-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies the claim of a yard crew for one day's pay on a contention that Maintenance of Way personnel had performed switching when they used their truck to move three hopper cars a sufficient distance in order that they could work on the section of track to be repaired. The Board finds that the work complained of was not "switching" as contemplated by the rule, but merely a movement of cars incidental to and in connection with maintenance of way work.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2286-Award 1
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: UTU vs. Detroit & Mackinac Railroad
Award Date: 1979-08-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of a train and engine crew for 100 miles each when employees of a Construction Company moved cars from the carrier's main line to a run-around track. Although the carrier contends the cars were moved without their knowledge, the Neutral held that it is the carrier's responsibility to police its trackage. Additional claims on behalf of employees on duty and under pay were denied as improper claimants.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2266-Award 4
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: BLE vs. Consolidated Rail Corp.
Award Date: 1979-06-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of Extra Engineer for a yard day to the proper claimant when not called to handle a derailed engine, rerailed and operated in the Enginehouse by a trainmaster. The Board finds that Carrier admitted a violation of the Agreement and accepted their contention that Organization had the wrong claimant and directs the Carrier to pay the day's pay to the proper claimant.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1922-Award 83
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-S vs. Southern Pacific
Award Date: 1979-03-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Three senior switchmen standing for service denied a day's pay at the yard rate. Carmen did not invade switchmen's jurisdiction when they used an off track vehicle to move cars placed for repairs on a track set aside for the exclusive purpose of performing repairs. Neutral finds that the entire track involved was protected by a blue flag. Dissent of Employee Member attached.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1922-Award 85
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-S vs. Southern Pacific
Award Date: 1979-03-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Three senior switchmen standing for service denied a day's pay at the yard rate. Neutral apparently errs in his finding that the circumstances are those to which Award No. 83., this board, may be applied. The track upon which carmen moved the cars to perform the repairs is normally a track used for switching. Yet, he excuses the impropriety of using an off track vehicle to perform switching by finding that, "The moves were on a track earmarked for repair functions at the time and were incidental to the repair function."
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1922-Award 93
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-S vs. Southern Pacific
Award Date: 1979-03-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Three senior switchmen standing for service denied a day's pay at the yard rate. Carmen did not invade switchmen's jurisdiction when they used an off track vehicle to move cars placed for repairs on a track set aside for the exclusive purpose of performing repairs. Neutral finds that the entire track involved was protected by a blue flag. Dissent of Employee Member attached.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2148-Award 12
Neutral: Eugene Mittelman
Parties: UTU-T&C vs. Detroit & Toledo Shore Line
Award Date: 1979-03-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: Superintendent improperly operated a train into the terminal when its crew outlawed under the Hours of Service a fraction of a mile from the carrier's yard. The outlawed crew was the only crew which had not been annulled on the holiday claim date. Therefore, the first out extra conductor and brakemen are sustained for 8 hours' pay less standby compensation. A related claim of a yard foreman and helpers for 8 hours' pay at time and one-half when carrier official yarded train is denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1922-Award 90
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-S vs. Southern Pacific
Award Date: 1979-03-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Three senior switchmen standing for service sustained for a yard day on July 9 and 10, denied on July 5, 1973. Claims arise from action by a private industry in moving cars by use of a tow truck from their spot on an industrial track to the Southern Pacific main line. Neutral sustains finding that a carrier cannot sit by while work that belongs to its employees is eroded by outsiders on its own property. Nonetheless, the single denial results from finding that was the first time in several years that claimant's rights had been invaded.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 175-Award 403
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Milwaukee Road - West
Award Date: 1979-03-12 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer who after arriving at tie-up point was instructed to switch out a wrecker and then instructed to tie up without performing the work is allowed thirty (30) minutes at yard rate in lieu of 100 miles as claimed. Neutral finds that while the traveling engineer improperly performed the work, the integrity of the agreement is not dependent upon award of a basic day's pay.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2151-Award 2
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Philadelphia, Bethlehem and New England
Award Date: 1979-03-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Machinist and Road Foreman of Engines violated the applicable agreement when they operated and switched diesel locomotives. Claim for a minimum day in the case of the first out extra engineer and brakeman are denied. Neutral finds that the work should have been performed by the engineer and one (1) brakeman from the yard crew working. They should have been held over on overtime and therefore allows 65 minutes at the overtime rate.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1810-Award 2
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-E vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe-E
Award Date: 1979-02-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Handling of locomotives within engine house territory is not the exclusive work of a hostler. Claim of a fireman (helper) when a machinist moved engines in the diesel shop yard is denied for lack of rule support.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1922-Award 91
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-S vs. Southern Pacific
Award Date: 1979-02-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Three senior switchmen standing for service denied a yard day when a private industry by use of truck crane vehicle moved cars from their industrial trackage to that of the carrier, Neutral distinguishes this award from that in Award No. 90., this board, by the fact that carrier had repeatedly warned industry to cease and desist moving cars. Furthermore, this was the first time in 3 years the industry had moved cars.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1922-Award 82
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-S vs. Southern Pacific
Award Date: 1979-02-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Neither a road freight crew or yardmaster performed yard service when road crew on a train departing the terminal was informed by the yardmaster to stop at a particular point so that the caboose could be supplied. Claim for a day's pay at the yard rate for the three (3) senior switchmen standing for duty is denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1829-Award 4
Neutral: Louis Yagoda
Parties: UTU vs. Monongahela Connecting
Award Date: 1979-02-06 00:00:00
Synopsis: A private industry loading slag for carrier movement used an off-track vehicle in spotting cars. Claims of first out extra conductor and brakemen for eight (8) hours sustained in the amount of two (2) hours each.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 175-Award 337
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Milwaukee Road - West
Award Date: 1979-01-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims of conductor and brakemen sustained for miles lost excluding deadhead miles. Claims based upon work performed by carrier's industrial customer in moving grain cars to foul the main line after they were spotted for loading at a grain elevator.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 175-Award 350
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Milwaukee Road - West
Award Date: 1979-01-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Various claims of yardmen for a minimum yard day denied. Neutral finds that claimants had no exclusive right to spread gravel on roundhouse tracks when roundhouse employees performed such work.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 175-Award 372
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Milwaukee Road - West
Award Date: 1979-01-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: A full yard crew was not necessary to assist a foreign line freight crew in moving its caboose from end of their train to another when detoured through a yard where claimants held seniority. Neutral finds that adequate and proper assistance was provided the foreign line crew by the conductor-pilot assigned.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 175-Award 374
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Milwaukee Road - West
Award Date: 1979-01-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Various claims of trainmen sustained for minimum yard day for one (1) trainman only on each claim date when a trainmaster performed yardmen's work. Claims of conductors denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2089-Award 38
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Chesapeake & Ohio
Award Date: 1978-12-07 00:00:00
Synopsis: Section foreman performed work of a train crew when he obtained a lineup of trains and flagged the main line for an industrial company in order that they move a bulldozer over the C&O tracks. Claim of conductor and two (2) brakemen sustained for one (1) day each.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1975-Award 5
Neutral: I. M. Lieberman
Parties: UTU-T vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation
Award Date: 1978-09-22 00:00:00
Synopsis: Various claims of terminal yardmen denied for a day's pay at brakeman rate when engineer and fireman (helper) operated light engine over main line trackage from enginehouse to yard some nine (9) to twelve (12) miles without the services of a trainman. The crux of the dispute amounts to the fact that the fireman handled the switches in the light engine movement following abolition of switchtender positions. Neutral denies with findings that the throwing of switches is not reserved to one craft; the engine crew was paid an arbitrary for the movement; and the claims lack rule support.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1479-Award 1
Neutral: Morris L. Myers
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern
Award Date: 1978-08-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yard foreman and helpers sustained in the amount of two (2) hours at the pro-rata rate, consistent with the carrier's offer, rather than pay for one (1) yard day as claimed. Claims arise from the operation of a train to the terminal by a roundhouse foreman aboard the locomotive when the crew's time expired under the Hours of Service Law.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1843-Award 4
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: UTU vs. Lake Terminal Railroad
Award Date: 1978-07-25 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a yard brakeman for one day's pay when a Yardmaster for the Norfolk & Western Railroad gave signals and adjusted the drawbar on a Lake Terminal Railroad engine coupling into cars to be interchanged to the Lake Terminal Railroad. The Board finds that the work performed by the Yardmaster was in violation of the agreement, but in sustaining the claim, held that because of the unique nature of the facts and circumstances of this case, this award shall have no precedential value.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1922-Award 60
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-S vs. Southern Pacific
Award Date: 1978-07-11 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim in the amount of a yard day for senior switchman standing for service is denied. While yardmaster lined a derail for a yard move, he contends that he was asked to do it by the foreman of the crew involved. Said foreman denies that he made such request. Since burden of proof is that of the employees and they have failed, claim is denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1922-Award 63
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-S vs. Southern Pacific
Award Date: 1978-07-11 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim in the amount of a yard day for senior switchman standing for service is sustained. Again, the yardmaster contends that he was asked by the foreman to relay signals between crew members by use of radio. Neutral accepts employee's testimony given by local chairman that he had personally requested the yardmaster not to use his radio until the cars had started to move.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1922-Award 65
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-S vs. Southern Pacific
Award Date: 1978-07-11 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim in the amount of a yard day for senior switchman standing for service is sustained. Roundhouse foreman lined a switch leading to the diesel shop and neither carrier or foreman can prove that he did not perform this work.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1467-Award 30
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-E vs. Delaware & Hudson
Award Date: 1978-06-01 00:00:00
Synopsis: Fireman (hostler) sustained in the amount of forty-seven (47) days at outside hostler rate when machinists violated applicable hostler rules by moving engines at diesel facility. Carrier argument that movement of the diesels by shopmen was for testing, and that fireman paid was not the senior or rightful claimant, both come too late. Neutral finds that such contentions were not raised on the property during handling, and therefore, cannot now be raised for the first time in hearing before this board.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1185-Award 46
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: UTU-T vs. Delaware & Hudson
Award Date: 1978-05-24 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yard foreman and helpers sustained in the amount of an additional day at yard rates when car inspector operated a switch for an engineer making a yard move. Carrier's issue of improper claimants found without merit, since they did not raise the issue on the property during handling and cannot raise it now.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2089-Award 18
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Chesapeake & Ohio
Award Date: 1978-05-16 00:00:00
Synopsis: A hostler assisting another hostler in moving an engine from the yard to the roundhouse did not give a hand signal to his compatriot operating the locomotive to move through a power switch. Neutral finds that the complained of signal was merely notice that he was at the switch in order to observe the switch points in compliance with the rules. Claim of yard brakeman for yard day is denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1932-Award 15
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-T vs. Houston Belt & Terminal
Award Date: 1978-05-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Extra foreman and helpers denied a basic day when a Rock Island crew turned cars on the Houston Belt wye within Houston Belt switching limits. Claimants denied on neutral's finding that the Rock Island is an owner line of the Belt; has trackage rights over the Belt; and has been turning cars on the Belt wye for some 60 years.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1978-Award 1
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-S vs. New Orleans Public Belt
Award Date: 1978-04-06 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yard ground crew sustained in the amount of a penalty day when a yard crew of the T.P.-M.P. Terminal removed the derail on the yard lead and used New Orleans Public Belt trackage to switch out their own cars apparently without permission of the Public Belt management. Neutral finds claimants' agreement violated since it is a responsibility of the carrier management to prevent such practice.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1590-Award 13
Neutral: Robert M. O'Brien
Parties: UTU vs. Denver and Rio Grande Western
Award Date: 1978-04-03 00:00:00
Synopsis: Carmen did not invade the jurisdiction of a yard ground crew when they moved cars on a "rip" track through use of a self-propelled machine. Neutral finds that the track in question is a confined area with locked switches at either end used exclusively for the repair of cars. Therefore, since the track is not within that category used for general yard switching, yard crews do not have the exclusive right for the movement of cars therein. Yard ground crew denied in claim for a penalty day.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1590-Award 17
Neutral: Robert M. O'Brien
Parties: UTU vs. Denver and Rio Grande Western
Award Date: 1978-04-03 00:00:00
Synopsis: Road freight trainman did not violate the rights of a yard crew when he "pulled the pin" uncoupling his caboose from others on the caboose track for the purpose of making a coupling with his locomotive incidental to road trip. Yard ground crew denied a penalty day.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1658-Award 9
Neutral: Fred Blackwell
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago, West Pullman and Southern
Award Date: 1978-03-31 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineers denied a day's pay at punitive rate claiming other than enginemen performed hostler duties by handling engines on roundhouse tracks when no hostler on duty. Facts indicate that the engines were moved by roundhouse employees only after one of the claimants was asked to move the locomotives immediately following his tie-up and refused. Neutral finds that claimant cannot refuse work and then expect payment of a penalty day when employees outside the proper jurisdiction are so used.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1865-Award 1
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-E vs. Kansas City Terminal
Award Date: 1978-03-16 00:00:00
Synopsis: Carrier did not violate schedule rule defining work of an engineer when Amtrak personnel moved locomotive and one car of an Amtrak train in order to spot at a steam connection. Engineer denied claim of an additional day on two (2) dates.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 195-Award 1018
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: UTU-T vs. Grand Trunk Western
Award Date: 1978-03-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Assistant trainmaster performed the work of a yard conductor when he recorded the arrival of cars from Canada received by ferry. Conductor and brakemen sustained in claim for an additional basic day each.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 195-Award 1022
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: UTU-T vs. Grand Trunk Western
Award Date: 1978-03-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Shop forces performed switching within the exclusive jurisdiction of a yard conductor when they used an on-track vehicle to spot a loaded supply car within the shop track area. Conductor sustained in the amount of one (1) basic day.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1842-Award 26
Neutral: Louis Yagoda
Parties: UTU-T vs. Central Railroad of New Jersey
Award Date: 1978-01-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Conductor and brakemen of road "drill" assignment partially sustained in the amount of four (4) hours instead of additional day as claimed when shop forces used to rerail cars of claimant's train in road territory.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1305-Award 144
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU-E vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1978-01-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer denied a yard day when hostler operated locomotive in moving cars of ballast which were unloaded and scattered by maintenance of way forces on a track strictly within the shop yard area.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1312-Award 261
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1977-12-29 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yard crew claim of an additional day for each crew member, sustained in part by allowing a day to the specific member of the crew who would have otherwise bled cars when these yardmen duties were impinged on by carmen. Neutral interprets schedule rule, finding that yardmen do not have the exclusive right to bleed cars at the time such work is assigned or when handed a switch list, but do have sole jurisdiction after coupling on and commencing to switch a train. Here, a carman continued to bleed air after the yard crew commenced switching the cars involved.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1915-Award 1
Neutral: James C. McBrearty
Parties: UTU vs. San Manuel Arizona Railroad
Award Date: 1977-12-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yard crew sustained for an additional day each when employees of the mill division, otherwise classified as industrial employees, returned an engine from industrial trackage to the shop area over trackage within jurisdiction of claimants thus violating the agreement.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1532-Award 48
Neutral: Murray M. Rohman
Parties: UTU vs. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe-Coast
Award Date: 1977-11-18 00:00:00
Synopsis: Trainmaster did not spot five (5) diesel helper units by use of the radio at the fuel facility which were to be cut in ahead of the caboose on claimant brakeman's train. Evidence indicates that trainmaster simply informed the lead engineer that the helper was spotted at the fuel facility in order that said lead engineer know its location. Brakeman denied an additional 100 miles as claimed contending trainmaster performed brakeman's duties.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1532-Award 43
Neutral: Murray M. Rohman
Parties: UTU vs. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe-Coast
Award Date: 1977-11-18 00:00:00
Synopsis: Car foreman performed the work of a herder when he rode a car down the rip track and made the stop using the car's handbrake. Claim sustained in the amount of a day at the herder's rate for the first out qualified extra yardman instead of for an engineer foreman and two (2) yard helpers.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2192
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago and North Western
Award Date: 1977-11-16 00:00:00
Synopsis: Various yardmasters sustained for a day's pay at prevailing yardmaster's rate when one shift abolished and local division officers performed yardmaster duties in violation of yardmaster's agreement.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1806-Award 2
Neutral: Murray M. Rohman
Parties: UTU-E vs. Port Terminal RR Assoc.
Award Date: 1977-10-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Carrier has no jurisdiction or authority over industrial trackage and may not stop industry employees from moving cars on such tracks with industry owned equipment. Evidence does not indicate that said industry fouled the main line in the complained of work. Claim of engineer and fireman (helper) for an additional day denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1047-Award 14
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Alabama, Tennessee & Northern
Award Date: 1977-09-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Conductor denied claim of 100 miles when a bridge crane operator and other employees of the carrier assisted in retailing a crane belonging to the Alabama, Tennessee and Northern but operating on Southern Railway trackage. Claimant contends violation of the agreement when he was not called as a conductor-pilot.
Neutral finds that the bridge crane and cars were derailed and rerailed on Southern trackage. Therefore, claimant as employee of the AT&N had no right to serve as a conductor-pilot on a foreign road.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1819-Award 5
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU-E vs. Denver and Rio Grande Western
Award Date: 1977-08-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims of three (3) extra engineers denied when officials of the carrier operated a carrier owned locomotive within the confines of an industrial plant when necessary to re-rail the two (2) unit diesel consist. Neutral concludes that claimants have no right to handle engines on private property. The neutral's "tortured" reasoning arises from the findings in N.R.A.B., First Division Award No. 2608 which dealt solely with industrial employees performing switching on their industrial trackage with the industry's own equipment. Said award did not in any way cover an incident where officials of the company operated a company owned locomotive on industrial trackage where engineers of the carrier normally performed service.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 423-Award 295
Neutral: Pat Cain
Parties: UTU-T vs. Port Terminal Railroad Association
Award Date: 1977-07-29 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of first out extra Yard Foreman and Helpers for eight (8) hours when cars were being moved by a tractor. The Board finds from review of the evidence that the Operating Authority revised its agreement with the participating railroads and PTRA so as to remove certain tracks from the authority of the PTRA thereby becoming the controlling entity to do with as it pleases. The tracks in question are part of the property no longer under the control of PTRA, but part of a private industry. As such there is no basis for the claim.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 195-Award 999
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: UTU-T vs. Grand Trunk Western
Award Date: 1977-07-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yardmen denied an additional 8 hours at straight time when employees of a scrap yard moved a gondola. Neutral finds no liability on the part of the carrier since the employees of the industry moved the car without carrier authorization or knowledge and carrier has taken steps to see that it does not happen again.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 195-Award 1004
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: UTU-T vs. Grand Trunk Western
Award Date: 1977-07-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yard crew sustained for an additional 8 hours at straight time when a track supervisor passed signals to the engine crew of a locomotive via radio when engaged in laying "ribbon" rail and operating without a yard ground crew.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1312-Award 198
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-T vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1977-06-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims of extra brakeman sustained for an additional day on each occasion carrier used a maintenance of way employee for a flagman instead of claimant.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1312-Award 199
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-T vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1977-06-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims of extra brakeman and extra conductor sustained on various dates for an additional day when carrier used a maintenance of way employee for a flagman instead of claimants.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1312-Award 200
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-T vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1977-06-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims of extra yardmen denied for one (1) yard day each. Claimants contend that their rights were violated when an industry used their own flagman at a crossing necessary to cross railroad property in order to service another industry. Neutral finds that flagman involved was required to flag roadway traffic only and did not flag trains.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1658-Award 7
Neutral: Fred Blackwell
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago, West Pullman and Southern
Award Date: 1977-06-29 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of engineer denied for a basic day's pay when not called for duty and shop foreman operated the throttle of an engine in rerailing same and shoving cars some 30 feet in the clear. Neutral denies on precedent of Award No. 23, P.L.B. 1266 when engine moved only a few feet.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1841-Award 1
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Minneapolis, Northfield and Southern
Award Date: 1977-05-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Conductor and Brakemen denied in claim for an additional 100 miles each. Yard crew derailed two (2) cars and machinist acting on orders from car foreman moved the locomotive and one car clear of derailment site some 4 or 5 car lengths more than was necessary. Claimants, as first out crew, contended they were entitled to the work. Neutral expounds his philosophy that agreement is not damaged by this type of movement, and a derailment should never result in a "windfall" to any employee of a carrier.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1653-Award 2
Neutral: Robert M. O'Brien
Parties: UTU vs. Monongahela Connecting Company
Award Date: 1977-04-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims of extra conductor and brakemen for a penalty day denied when a steel company locomotive and crew placed cars on a yard track. Neutral finds that the yard in question is jointly operated by the carrier and the steel company but the track involved is solely owned by the steel company. Additional findings indicate that joint arrangements between the carrier and the steel company constitute agreement between the managements as to track usage and are not a part of the collective bargaining agreement with the employees. Finally, a steel company crew commits no violation by placing cars on a track which the steel company owns.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1312-Award 183
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-T vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1977-03-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of a yard foreman and two (2) helpers for an additional day each, sustained on a conditional basis for only one (1) yard helper. Dispute arises as to the role played by a yardmaster in performing employee's work and neutral attempts to "piece together" a recitation of numerous confused facts presented by both parties in order to determine what exactly took place. Carrier first stated that yardmaster was instructed to only determine whether a specific track was coupled after crew completed its work. This is not considered encroachment on employee duties. Neutral then determines that carrier has implied admission to the fact that yardmaster was requested to check track capacity when crew was instructed to shove cars on same track to an air plug. This amounts to encroachment on employee duties and in such case one (1) yard helper is to be sustained for an additional day.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 600-Award 164
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Texas and Pacific
Award Date: 1976-12-06 00:00:00
Synopsis: First out extra yardman sustained in the amount of a basic yard day when facts of record reveal that general yardmaster relayed signals by radio to the head brakeman and/or engineer of a road train moving within the yard.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 423-Award 161
Neutral: Hubert Wyckoff
Parties: UTU-T vs. Port Terminal Railroad
Award Date: 1976-10-07 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims of various yard crews in the amount of a minimum day sustained when employees of the Houston Public Elevator Company improperly performed service on the trackage of the Port Terminal Railroad Association.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 423-Award 170
Neutral: Hubert Wyckoff
Parties: UTU-T vs. Port Terminal Railroad
Award Date: 1976-10-06 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of a yard crew sustained in the amount of eight (8) hours each when, commencing with failure of certain yard diesel units, yardmaster violated yard job assignment agreement and per his instructions yard crews were required to perform service and duties other than to which normally assigned.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 600-Award 130
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Texas and Pacific Railway
Award Date: 1976-09-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of yard foreman for a minimum day denied when it could not be proven that a yardmaster was passing signals for train movement from a head brakeman to his engineer through use of radio communication in the yard tower.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 600-Award 131
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Texas and Pacific Railway
Award Date: 1976-09-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claims of extra yardmen on contention that crews of the MKT were improperly performing service on T&P trackage. Board finds that claims amount to a protest against trackage rights agreement as MKT crews performed only their own work.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1050-Award 46
Neutral: Thomas L. Hayes
Parties: UTU-T vs. Houston Belt & Terminal Company
Award Date: 1976-09-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims in behalf of an extra yard crew sustained for a basic day each when Santa Fe crew improperly performed work train service within the yard limits of the Houston Belt & Terminal Company.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1050-Award 47
Neutral: Thomas L. Hayes
Parties: UTU-T vs. Houston Belt & Terminal Company
Award Date: 1976-09-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims in behalf of a regular yard crew sustained for a basic day each when the yardmaster, through use of his switch list, instructed claimant yard crew in the switching of "untagged" cars contained in a Rock Island train.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1535-Award 30
Neutral: Murray M. Rohman
Parties: UTU-T vs. Houston Belt & Terminal Company
Award Date: 1976-08-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims in behalf of a regular yard crew sustained for a basic day each when yardmaster violated schedule rules by forwarding instructions to foreman over yard engine radio as to how yard work was to be performed rather than what yard work was to be performed.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 704-Award 7
Neutral: Thomas J. Kenan
Parties: UTU-T vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1974-11-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of yard crew denied when yardmaster actively engaged in the performance of yard foreman's work. Board determines that carrier and particular supervisor involved were justified in performing the work which constituted building a train on a track not ordinarily used; such experiment conducted for the specific purpose of planning for crew consist and safety of movements necessary to the implementation of the Award of Arbitration Board No. 282.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 704-Award 9
Neutral: Thomas J. Kenan
Parties: UTU-T vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1974-11-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of yard crew denied when yardmaster pulled a "pin" and through use of his radio assisted road crew in doubling train around the wye and into appropriate yard track. Board determines that proper claimant, if any, is a road trainman and that yardmen have no rule or precedent past practice to support a claim.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 704-Award 16
Neutral: Thomas J. Kenan
Parties: UTU-T vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1974-11-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of extra yardman denied when yardmaster issued orders to a yard engineer to stop when from his position in tower he observed an accident resulting in cars being derailed and turned over. Board denies on basis of active yard work not being exclusively that of yardmen due to lack of scope rule with note that yardmaster himself engaged in the questionable work and did not instruct other yardmen apart from the crew involved to do the work.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 5571-Award 1
Neutral: Robert O. Harris
Parties: UTU vs. Buffalo & Pittsburgh RR
Award Date: 1974-05-23 00:00:00
Synopsis:
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 100-Award 296
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: UTU-T vs. St. Louis-Southwestern
Award Date: 1971-11-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of yardman for a basic day when trainmaster operated derails of interlocker at North Little Rock Yard in order to detour and re-route trains due to carrier's main track being blocked by derailment.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 597-Award 1
Neutral: Robert O. Boyd
Parties: UTU vs. Modesto & Empire Traction
Award Date: 1971-02-01 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains a claim of senior available switchman, when an assigned yardmaster was allowed to lay off and in the interim period perform service on a switchman's vacancy; the superintendent, holding no seniority as a yardmaster or switchman, filling the yardmaster's vacancy.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 18-Award 4503
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU-T vs. Southern Pacific-PL
Award Date: 1970-01-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim for an additional day and runarounds account trainmaster participating in switching operations. Sustained for additional day, runaround claims denied.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 423-Award 168
Neutral: Hubert Wyckoff
Parties: UTU-T vs. Port Terminal Railroad Association
Award Date:
Synopsis: Claim of yard foreman for an additional basic day sustained when roadmaster performed work in giving signals to engineer, bled cars and set hand brakes during tour of duty by crew engaged in extra work unloading slag. (undated award)
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1877-Award 2
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-E vs. Bangor & Aroostook
Award Date:
Synopsis: Hostler sustained for a day on three (3) different claim dates when machinists moved locomotives in enginehouse territory. (undated award)
View Award
Public Law Board No. 6981-Award 3
Neutral: John R. Binau
Parties: UTU v. Manufacturers Railway Company
Award Date:
Synopsis: Sustains claim of foreman for eight (8) hours at the pro rata rate when not called for pilot service on a Sperry rail car. Carrier used a mechanical supervisor to accompany the Sperry car operator and admitted that he performed piloting duties in the carrier's initial claim declination to the organization. The Board finds that the applicable rule supports the organization's position that yardmen have the right to perform all pilot service and, since the carrier official performed this service, the claim must be sustained. (undated award)
View Award
Public Law Board No. 6981-Award 2
Neutral: John R. Binau
Parties: UTU v. Manufacturers Railway Company
Award Date:
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of the organization for violation of the crew consist agreement, but denies the basic day payment claimed by trainman. As a result of Claimant's other ground crew member leaving the assignment early due to illness and the carrier being unable to fill the assignment with another train service employee, a General Trainmaster was used to assist Claimant in a switching move requested by an industry that could not wait for the next shift to arrive. The Board holds that while this was a direct violation of the agreement, Claimant suffered no monetary loss. However, future occurrences such as this will result in a penalty payment. Carrier's dissent attached. (undated award)
View Award