|
|||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||
|
Outside of Assignment - Additional Duties
Public Law Board No. 5471-Award 80
Neutral: Charles P. Fischbach
Parties: UTU vs. CSX
Award Date: 2007-07-12 00:00:00
Synopsis: (Dismissed w/o Prejudice)
View Award
First Division, N.R.A.B. -Award 26376
Neutral: Edwin H. Benn
Parties: Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
Award Date: 2006-11-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of engineer for eight (8) hours in addition to all other earnings when required to turn engines on a wye that was not work in connection with his own assignment. In denying the claim, the Division holds that the work performed was merely turning the engine consist on the wye track as permitted by Article VIII, Section 3(b) of the 1986 Agreement. Since no other work was performed, this is distinguishable from the award cited by the organization in support of the claim and this claim must therefore be denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2273-Award 8
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-S vs. Los Angeles Junction Rwy.
Award Date: 1989-12-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of yard crew for one day's pay for switching a car from an Industry track to the Union Pacific yard. Claimant crew was switching an industry jointly served by the Carrier and the Union Pacific Railroad, the crew was instructed to switch a car from a door at the industry to the Union Pacific yard. The Board finds that the claimant crew did more than simply move the car out of their way to complete a movement and that the industry cannot require the Carrier to switch cars from the industry to the Union Pacific yard.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 88-Award 12 (Interpretation)
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU vs. Delaware & Hudson
Award Date: 1988-07-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Interpretation - Award No. 12. Following rendition of awards sustaining claims for an additional day's pay carrier contended that they were entitled to deduct amounts allowed for time consumed for additional service involved. Committee contended carrier must pay claims as presented and could not raise a new issue. Committee's position sustained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2500-Award 32
Neutral: Theodore H. O'Brien
Parties: UTU-E vs. Maine Central
Award Date: 1987-07-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for 100 miles when he was required to drain cylinder valves and start three (3) locomotives before departing the engine house. Organization contends that this work has always been performed by machinists and electricians and the agreement does not permit the Carrier to assign the work to engineers when positions of another craft are abolished. Carrier asserts that the rules merely require that the power be set out on the "ready track", not that it be prepared and ready to go. The Board holds that the Carrier is bound by the established past practice and sustains this claim accordingly.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 4292-Award 2
Neutral: Peter Henle
Parties: UTU vs. Chesapeake & Ohio (Former Baltimore and Ohio)
Award Date: 1987-07-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Conductor and crew for 100 miles when required to remain on duty to check the operation of an end-of-train device. The work performed was at a crew change point and the change amounted to a step-off, step-on. The Board finds no rule support for the instant claim and since the work required related to the crews own train and took little time or effort, there is no basis for the claim.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2500-Award 23
Neutral: Theodore H. O'Brien
Parties: UTU-E vs. Maine Central
Award Date: 1987-04-06 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for one (1) day's pay at yard rate when required to perform an air brake test on another train. Organization contends that the work performed by Claimant was outside of his assignment and work properly belonging to another craft. Carrier maintains that nothing in the rules limits the duties which may be required of Claimant. The Board finds that the long standing and mutually accepted practice of the parties supports the claim that brake tests are not part of Claimant's duties and the claim is sustained accordingly.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 4068-Award 34
Neutral: Arnold M. Zack
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Maine Central - Portland Terminal
Award Date: 1987-04-03 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Conductor and Brakemen for 100 miles when required to mark down and furnish a list of car numbers handled in connection with his assignment. Organization urges that this work properly belonged to the clerks' craft. The Board finds that the work performed was ancillary to the Conductor's duties and not an infringement on the duties of another craft.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 4183-Award 3
Neutral: Raymond R. Hawkins
Parties: UTU-E vs. Southern Pacific
Award Date: 1987-03-23 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains in part the claim of various engineers by allowing one (1) hour pay, in lieu of eight (8) hours claimed, when required to supply their locomotive. Claims of other engineers under similar circumstances dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Board holds that the work required of Claimants was over and beyond their agreement responsibilities, but finds one (1) hour pay the appropriate remedy.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3572-Award 20
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk and Western
Award Date: 1987-03-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Conductor for 100 miles when required to perform the duties of the rear brakeman when cutting in and out helper units during his tour of duty. Carrier had instructed both brakemen to ride in the locomotive units. The Board finds no rule support for the instant claim and further that there is no evidence to establish that the work performed belongs exclusively to brakemen.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3572-Award 22
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk and Western
Award Date: 1987-03-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Engineer for a day's pay when required to replace the headlight on his locomotive. Claimant contends that he was instructed to do so after notifying the dispatcher that the light was out, however, the Board finds no specific evidence to support that contention and holds that Claimant performed the task on a voluntary basis.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 4086-Award 2
Neutral: Jack W. Cassle
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Galveston, Houston and Henderson
Award Date: 1987-03-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of various Footboard Yardmasters and Yardmen for one day's pay when required to realign switches upon completion of delivery of interchange to a foreign carrier. The Board finds that the required actions were not violative of the interchange principles and there is no basis upon which to sustain these claims.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 4183-Award 4
Neutral: Raymond R. Hawkins
Parties: UTU-E vs. Southern Pacific
Award Date: 1987-03-11 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for 100 miles on various dates when ice and water was not available. Carrier contends that Claimant, knowing the ice machine at the terminal was inoperative, should have picked it up at the lodging facility and transported it to the on duty point. The Board finds that Carrier was put on notice, by the local chairperson, of the continuing violation and the Carrier failed to remedy the situation.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 910-Award 145
Neutral: Robert E. Peterson
Parties: UTU-T vs. Conrail
Award Date: 1986-12-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor and Brakeman for one day's pay when required to inspect their train upon receipt at a foreign carrier's yard when no car inspector was available. The Board finds no support for Carrier's argument that it cannot be held responsible for direction Claimants received from another railroads supervision since the location where the disputed work took place is operated as a consolidated yard. In sustaining this claim, The Board holds that Claimants performed more than a routine brake test and the work required was outside the scope of duties of train crews.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3894-Award 27
Neutral: Walter L. Phipps
Parties: UTU vs. Southern Pacific
Award Date: 1986-09-16 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of various Switchmen on various dates when required to pass cars being delivered to a foreign Carrier past a camera for the purpose of relaying information to the foreign Carrier's computer. The Board finds in favor of the position cited by the Organization and holds that the work here involved was performed for the sole convenience of the foreign Carrier.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3634-Award 5
Neutral: Garth L. Mangum
Parties: UTU-T vs. Union Pacific
Award Date: 1986-08-12 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains in part the claim of Foreman and Helpers by allowing two (2) hours pay, in lieu of eight (8) hours claimed, when required to assist a D&RGW crew over a grade and out of the UP yard when pulling an interchange cut of cars. The Board finds sufficient evidence of rule violation, however, given all the facts of record, it deems a two (2) hour penalty to be appropriate.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3731-Award 4
Neutral: I. M. Lieberman
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern
Award Date: 1985-12-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of various Conductors and Brakemen for eight (8) hours pay in addition to all other earning when required to close doors on freight cars. Organization contends that this work properly and historically belongs to Carmen while Carrier maintains that the task of closing doors is and always has been within the duties of the ground service employees. The Board holds that Claimants can be required to perform the work in question and the Organization failed in its burden to prove rule support.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2913
Neutral: Walter L. Phipps
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago and North Western
Award Date: 1985-12-03 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for one day's pay at yard rates when required to assist another road train in making a set out. This required the lining of a switch and making the cut. Carrier urges that Claimant volunteered to assist with the move in order to expedite his departure from the yard. However, the Board finds from the evidence that Claimant acted in accordance with information received from the trainmaster.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3778-Award 5
Neutral: Neil P. Speirs
Parties: UTU vs. Grand Trunk Western
Award Date: 1985-11-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor and Brakemen for eight (8) hours when required to make an air and brake test prior to departure from their initial terminal. Organization contends that it is work properly owing to employees of the car department while carrier argues that this was necessary for the crew to insure that their train was in proper condition. The Board holds that the applicable rule does not contemplate the requirement of trainmen making air tests at switching terminals where carmen are employed.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3510-Award 24
Neutral: Herbert L. Marx, Jr.
Parties: UTU vs. Chesapeake and Ohio
Award Date: 1985-06-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Yard Conductor for one (1) day's pay when required to work two (2) assignments during one (1) tour of duty. Claimant was separated from his crew on two occasions during their duties as general yard crew in order to pilot a crane from the Paint Shop to the Scale Track and return. During this time the remainder of the crew performed no yard work. The Board holds in accordance with a long line of awards cited by the Carrier involving similar situations permitting the temporary work like that in question, so long as the other crew members do not perform work which would otherwise include the affected employee.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2143-Award 496
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU-E vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1985-02-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Car Retarder Operator for one day at the Footboard Yardmaster's rate. Claimant contends that he was required to perform work of a yardmaster when Carrier placed a radio in the retarder tower so that he could receive calls from switchman to block tracks. The Board holds that the change in method of communication did not constitute a transfer of work which was, under the terms of the agreement, under the exclusive jurisdiction of yardmasters.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 94-Award 346
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk and Western
Award Date: 1984-12-18 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of various Car Retarder Operators for 8 hours each when required to perform clerical duties. Organization contends that the work required of Claimants exceed that provided for in the scope rule and the record keeping of cars handled is properly belonging to another craft. Carrier contends that the work is not exclusive to any craft and is incidental to the Claimants' duties. The Board finds in favor of the Carrier's position and cites several awards where some clerical work is required of yard employees.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2852
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago and North Western
Award Date: 1984-09-12 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Conductor and Brakemen for one (1) day's pay at prevailing way freight rate when required to rerail an engine of a foreign railroad on an industry track. The Board finds that Claimants were paid at the highest rate applicable for performing more than one class of road service and since it was necessary to rerail the engine in order to serve the industry, this claim will be denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3195-Award 135
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Norfolk and Western
Award Date: 1984-08-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Conductor for one (1) day's pay at yardmaster rate on seven (7) dates. Organization contends that Claimant was required to select cars for spotting at a dock and this selection should have been done by a yardmaster. Carrier contends that conductors and clerical forces have routinely selected empty cars for spotting at this location. The Board finds no evidence to support a conclusion that Claimant was performing work outside of the scope of his classification as conductor.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3715-Award 16
Neutral: Joseph Lazar
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern - C&S
Award Date: 1984-07-16 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of various employees for 100 miles when required to service the rear end protective devices known as the "Black Box." Organization recognizes that Arbitration Board No. 419 held that train service employees could be required to attach and detach the device from their train and handle it between the train and storage area. However, it did not permit these employees to service the device. The Board holds that the tasks of recharging the "Black Box" are incidental to and included in the basic duties of placement and removal of the rear end protective device and come within the scope of duties of trainmen.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 423-Award 270
Neutral: Robert A. Franden
Parties: UTU vs. Port Terminal Railroad
Award Date: 1984-06-29 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Yardman for eight (8) hours at the foreman rate. The foreman of Claimant's crew received permission to go home to change clothes and Claimant contends he acted as foreman during the time he was gone. The Board finds from the record that Claimant did not perform any foreman's duties and the foreman was under pay during the entire time in question.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3572-Award 3
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-C,E&T vs. Norfolk and Western
Award Date: 1984-06-29 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claims of various Conductors and Brakemen for 100 miles or 8 hours when required to call the crew clerk and register their off-duty time. Organization contends that the work performed belonged to clerks and was outside the duties of Claimants. Further, clerks had performed this work for over 50 years. The Board holds that the simple fact that another employee has performed a duty for a number of years does not in itself grant exclusive jurisdiction to that craft to perform the work.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3230-Award 28
Neutral: C. A. Peacock
Parties: UTU-E vs. Seaboard System Railroad - Former SCL
Award Date: 1984-06-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Hostler and Hostler Helper for 100 miles at through freight rates. During Claimants' tour of duty, they were transported to a point outside switching limits, cut off the locomotive from a road train and handled same back into the yard. The Board holds that Claimants were clearly inducted into road service and they are entitled to the compensation claimed.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3054-Award 3
Neutral: Robert E. Peterson
Parties: UTU vs. Toledo, Peoria & Western
Award Date: 1984-04-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Engine Foreman and Brakemen for 100 miles when required to sweep switches. The Board finds from the record that Claimants were only required to clean those switches needed for their own use and, under these circumstances, there is no basis for the claim.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2836-Award 11
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk & Western
Award Date: 1984-02-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Conductor and Brakemen for 100 miles when required to bleed air from cars not switched. Organization contends that the work performed by Claimants constituted yard work and they should be compensated accordingly. The Board, however, finds no rule support for this contention and the claim must be denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3306-Award 2
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU-C vs. Union Pacific
Award Date: 1984-02-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Conductor for 100 miles when required to "book" his outbound road train. Organization contends that clerical forces were on duty and it was improper to require Claimant to correct the train consist list prior to departure from the initial terminal. The Board finds that the work performed was in connection with Claimant's own train and incidental to the performance of his regular duties.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 18-Award 5502
Neutral: Gilbert H. Vernon
Parties: UTU-E vs. Southern Pacific-Western Lines
Award Date: 1984-01-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Engineer for one (1) hour's pay when required to exchange the main radio pack from one locomotive to another because of a malfunction. Organization contends that the radio pack is a "tool" or "signal equipment" and Claimant is prohibited by rule from being required to perform the work in question. The Board finds no basis for this contention and holds that the radio pack does not fall within the category of "signal equipment" as contemplated by the rule.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3127-Award 4
Neutral: Robert E. Peterson
Parties: UTU-E vs. Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range
Award Date: 1984-01-01 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Engineer for 100 miles at hostler rate when required to move an engine from a roundhouse track to the regular tie-up track. The Board finds no rule which confines this work exclusively to hostlers and the carrier could properly require Claimant to perform the work in dispute without incurring a penalty claim either as hostler work or engine exchange.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3127-Award 5
Neutral: Robert E. Peterson
Parties: UTU-E vs. Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range
Award Date: 1984-01-01 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Engineer for 100 miles at Hostler rate on the basis of the findings contained in Award No. 4.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2143-Award 348
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1983-10-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Hostler and Hostler Helper for 100 miles when required to jump start a diesel unit which had defective batteries. Organization's position that Claimants repaired the battery is held by the Board to be without merit.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2143-Award 347
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1983-10-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains in part the claim of Hostler and Hostler Helper by allowing 100 miles to the individual who actually performed the task of adding oil to a diesel unit. In the absence of documentation establishing the identity of the individual, the Board presumes it to be assigned to the Helper and he shall be entitled to the penalty. The Board finds from the amended language of the applicable agreement that the requirement of Claimants to add lubricating oil to diesel units is beyond the scope of their duties and sustains this claim in accordance with the foregoing.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2527-Award 61
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: UTU vs. Richmond, Fredericksburg Potomac
Award Date: 1983-10-13 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor and Brakeman for one (1) day's pay at yard rates when required to pull an outlawed road switcher into the yard. Claimants, members of a local freight crew, performed work properly belonging to yard crews. The Board finds language of the agreement is clear that when switchers are tied up under the Hours of Service Law, the movement will be completed by yard crews.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3196-Award 1
Neutral: Rodney E. Dennis
Parties: UTU vs. Long Island
Award Date: 1983-06-23 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains in part and denies in part multiple claims of Conductors, Brakemen and Ticket Collectors when required to perform additional duties during the course of their tour of duty. Because of the multitude of claims, the Board has divided them into six (6) groups, and then further divided them into claims involving Grades of Service and those involving crossing craft lines. With regard to claims where the claimants were required to handle brakes and perform air tests and couplings, claim groups two (2), three (3), four (4) and six (6), the Board holds that since the Conductor is in charge of the train, he can instruct his crew members to perform tasks traditionally reserved to trainmen and these claims are denied. Concerning those claims of crossing craft lines, groups one (1) and five (5), the Board finds that it was improper to have Claimants check the speed control seals and close windows in cars and turn off heat and lights when laying up a train. In sustaining the claims, the Board finds that the total liability of the Carrier shall not exceed $1.5 million and this money is to be divided evenly among the claimants. Further, future violations of these scope rules will result in a definite penalty of one (1) day's pay.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2236-Award 35
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: UTU vs. Western Maryland
Award Date: 1983-06-13 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Conductor for five (5) days' pay at yard rate when required to perform clerical duties consisting of taking mail orders, writing up transfers of cars, making lists of cars to be switched, etc. Organization admits that prior to the dates of claim, Claimant could have been required and did, in fact, perform the work as outlined above. However, clerical forces were on duty on a 24-hour basis during the period of claim and Organization contends that Claimant was then required to perform the work of another craft. The Board finds no basis for the instant claim as there is no evidence that any work performed by Claimant was transferred to the Clerks craft exclusively. There is evidence, however, that Claimant performed the same work that he had performed for many years without claim.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 180-Award 1137
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: BLE vs. Southern Pacific
Award Date: 1983-05-31 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claims of various Engineers for two (2) additional hours each date when required to set out and pick up diesel units. Claimants' trains consisted of three (3) lead units and three (3) remote units within the train consist and operated by radio control. They were required to cut out the remote units, after dumping the coal train, back around their train and attach the remote units to the lead units for conventional operation back to the terminal. Carrier contends that the handling of the units was incidental service and does not constitute a bona fide set-out and pick-up. The Board finds no support for the Carrier's contention and holds that Claimants are entitled to the compensation claimed.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2212-Award 34
Neutral: Irving T. Bergman
Parties: UTU vs. Portland Terminal
Award Date: 1983-05-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Switchman for one (1) day's pay at the appropriate rate when required to make a cut in a foreign Carrier's train. Organization contends that it was improper to require Claimant to perform this work and by making the cut he constructively became a member of the foreign Carrier's crew. Carrier argues that the rules permit the use of Claimant to assist tenant Carrier crews. The Board finds from the language of the agreement that only crews, not individuals, may assist tenant crews in the handling of their trains.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2487-Award 55
Neutral: Irving T. Bergman
Parties: UTU-E vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe - E&W
Award Date: 1983-04-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Engineer for 100 miles at the hostler rate in addition to all other earnings. Claimant was required to take charge of three (3) units at the sand house and handle them to the main line, couple these units to one unit that had been left on the main line and thereafter couple the engine consist to the train. Organization contends that this work properly belonged to hostlers while Carrier contends that the work performed was permissible under the 1971 BLE National Agreement. After review of all the facts and evidence presented, the Board holds that the work was not the function of hostling nor did it fulfill the purpose of hostling in making engines ready for use to be picked up by engineers. Organizations dissent is attached.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3230-Award 6
Neutral: C. A. Peacock
Parties: UTU-E vs. Seaboard System, Inc. (SCL)
Award Date: 1983-04-18 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for a minimum yard day when required to switch cars for a foreign railroad. Claimant yard engineer was instructed to pull the rear cars of a foreign Carrier's train into the clear so that the foreign Carrier crew could effect a rerailment of its engine and one or more cars. The Board finds that the work was not done for the benefit of this Carrier, but for the benefit of the foreign Carrier.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1312-Award 756
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Baltimore & Ohio RR Co.
Award Date: 1983-04-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor and Brakemen for one (1) yard day when required to couple their caboose to an outbound train of another crew. Carrier contends that Claimants were not instructed to perform this work. Claimants contend they were instructed to do so by the Yardmaster. The Board finds that the evidence preponderates in favor of the Employees and this claim is sustained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 912-Award 657
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk & Western Rwy. Co.
Award Date: 1983-04-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yard Foreman for eight (8) hours' pay when required to perform the duties of a clerk by weighing a car, but denies the claim of Yard Helpers. The Board finds from the evidence of record, that a yard clerk was available to perform the work and the Yard Foreman's claim is valid. The claim for Yard Helpers is denied for lack of rule support. Carrier's dissent attached.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1977-Award 77
Neutral: Joseph A. Sickles
Parties: UTU vs. Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac
Award Date: 1983-04-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Conductor and Brakemen for one (1) day's pay when required to classify two (2) cars. Organization contends that the work performed was the exclusive function of a hump crew. The Board finds no provision in the agreement which would preclude the crew in question from handling the cars without using the hump facility.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1977-Award 75
Neutral: Joseph A. Sickles
Parties: UTU vs. Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac
Award Date: 1983-04-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains in part the claim of Conductor and Brakeman for one (1) hour each in lieu of one (1) day claimed. Claimant yard crew coupled to a foreign Carrier's derailed train and pulled 35 cars. They contend they were required to perform work on a foreign Carrier's line. The Board finds that the circumstances herein present an interesting question due to the arrangement for use by one Carrier of another Carrier's tracks. The Board cannot dismiss the Employee's assertion that under these isolated circumstances they performed service on a foreign line and in view of the small amount of time which was actually consumed, one (1) hour per Claimant is appropriate.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1048-Award 104
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU vs. Western Pacific RR Co.
Award Date: 1983-03-22 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Conductor and Brakemen for 100 miles. At an intermediate point of Claimants' assignment, they were required to pick up cars for their train from two (2) tracks. Organization contends that one track would have held the entire train and the move here involved was not a straight pick-up. The Board finds from the record that one track would not have held the entire train and the move was a straight pick-up as intended by the January 27, 1972 Agreement.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 18-Award 5427
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU-E vs. Southern Pacific-Western Lines
Award Date: 1983-03-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Fireman for one (1) day at the outside hostler helper rate in addition to compensation previously allowed. Claimant operated his hostler assignment on the date in question without a helper and was required to operate the turntable and handle switches inside the roundhouse and handle engines both inside and outside the roundhouse. The Board finds the situation in this case analogous to a case settled in favor of the Organization on the property and sustains this claim accordingly.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 964-Award 471
Neutral: John B. Criswell
Parties: UTU-T vs. Southern Railway Company
Award Date: 1983-02-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claims of various Conductors and Yard Foremen for four (4) hours at yard rate and various Brakemen and Yard Helpers for eight (8) hours at yard rate when road crews were required to weigh cars upon arrival at a yard where yard crews are employed. The Board finds in accordance with a prior decision involving this same principle, to the effect that weighing cars is not the exclusive right of Yardmen and the Carrier can route cars so that they pass over an automatic scale while in motion and coupled.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 964-Award 472
Neutral: John B. Criswell
Parties: UTU-T vs. Southern Railway Company
Award Date: 1983-02-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claims of various Yard Helpers for eight (8) hours' pay at the Car Retarder Operator rate when required to operate the slack retarder on the hump at periodic times during their tour of duty. Carrier modernized its hump operations and furnished yard helpers a small radio-type device to open and close the slack retarder to assist in the release of the coupler pin. Prior to the introduction of this radio device, the helper had to notify his hump foreman, who then operated the slack retarder. The Board finds that this device is incidental to the performance of duties and it is not a violation of the agreement to assign this work to Claimants.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2105-Award 40
Neutral: John B. Criswell
Parties: UTU-E vs. Missouri Pacific
Award Date: 1983-02-25 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Hostler for one (1) day's pay each date he was required to couple and uncouple locomotive consists, but denies claim of Hostler Helper. The Board finds that a Carrier bulletin said both hostler and hostler helpers would help in performing the duties complained of, and the bulletin was subsequently amended to the effect that only the helper would be required to perform the service. In view of the above, the hostler claim is sustained and the hostler helper claim is denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2915-Award 12
Neutral: David Dolnick
Parties: UTU-E vs. Southern Pacific Trans. Company
Award Date: 1983-01-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Engineer for 100 miles in addition to all other earnings when required to operate beyond his assigned limits. Claimant was regularly assigned to a road switcher confined to operate within a 25-mile radius of the on and off duty point. Organization contends that Claimant was used beyond the 25-mile limitation when required to pick up cars from a track at the turning point of his assignment. The Board finds that the movement here involved was for the sole purpose of attaining "head room" and cites numerous awards denying cases similar to this.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3023-Award 4
Neutral: Robert E. Peterson
Parties: UTU vs. Sacramento Northern Rwy.
Award Date: 1983-01-18 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Conductor and Brakemen for 100 miles at yard rates when required to pick up and switch caboose into their road train. Notwithstanding the fact that a yard crew was on duty, the Board finds that the work complained of did not come within the prescribed restrictions contained in the Agreement between the parties. Further, the work performed was incidental to the movement and/or operation of the road train.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2980-Award 6
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Minnesota, Dakota & Western
Award Date: 1983-01-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Yard Foreman and Helpers for an additional day's pay when required to jump start a foreign Carrier's locomotives. The Board holds that under the circumstances of this case, an emergency existed and the work performed could properly be assigned to Claimants.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1457-Award 54
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: UTU vs. Baltimore and Ohio
Award Date: 1983-01-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Conductor for one (1) hour when crossing over to pick up a dead engine with flags out in both directions. The Board finds that the Claimant was operating in automatic block system territory and as such it was not necessary to provide flag protection to the rear. Further, the work required of Claimant was minimal and did not meet the quantitative work requirements necessary to sustain the claim.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1457-Award 55
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: UTU vs. Baltimore and Ohio
Award Date: 1983-01-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Conductor for one (1) hour for crossing over on the basis of the findings contained in Award No. 54 of this Board.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2646-Award 10
Neutral: A. Thomas Van Wart
Parties: UTU-T vs. Toledo, Peoria & Western
Award Date: 1983-01-07 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Conductor and Brakemen for 100 miles each when required to copy a list of cars to be switched. Organization contends that the copying of numbers for cars received by telephone to be removed and/or spotted to the designated industries, and walking track to locate same, is outside the scope of Conductors and Brakemen's duties. The Board finds that Organization has not cited any rule to support their contention and on the record before it, the Board, is impelled to deny the claim.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2646-Award 11
Neutral: A. Thomas Van Wart
Parties: UTU-T vs. Toledo, Peoria & Western
Award Date: 1983-01-07 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Conductor and Brakemen for 100 miles when required to pick up a car at two (2) locations without a switch list. The Board denies this claim on the basis of the findings contained in Awards Nos. 2 and 10 of this Board.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2646-Award 12
Neutral: A. Thomas Van Wart
Parties: UTU-T vs. Toledo, Peoria & Western
Award Date: 1983-01-07 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Conductor for 100 miles when required to make a list of grain cars picked up at a foreign Carrier's yard. Organization contends that the work required was outside the scope of Claimant's assignment. The Board finds that Organization has cited no rule in support of this contention, nor has there been any offering of prior settlements arising out of like circumstances that would support this claim.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1312-Award 728
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Baltimore & Ohio RR Co.
Award Date: 1982-11-29 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Conductor and crew for an additional day each date when required to run through home terminal. Claimants' assignment was rebulletined to include servicing a branch line. This required Claimants to operate back through their initial and home terminal enroute to their away-from-home terminal. The Board finds that the side trip was included in the new bulletin of assignment and properly required of Claimants. Further, Organization cites no rule in support of this claim.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1483-Award 67
Neutral: Robert M. O'Brien
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Maine Central - Portland Terminal Co.
Award Date: 1982-10-18 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Road Conductor and Brakemen for one day's pay at yard rates when required to perform their entire tour of duty within yard limits. Claimants were called for snow plow service to clear the yard and then operate in road territory to an intermediate point. However, due to derailment of their equipment, they were assigned another engine and plow and consequently never left the yard limits. The Board finds that this work clearly belonged to yardmen in accordance with rules in effect on the property. And, although the Carrier intended to use Claimants in yard and road territory, the road crew was never so used.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2983-Award 4
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: BLE vs. Union Pacific RR Co.
Award Date: 1982-06-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for one (1) hour when required to place ice and water on his engine. Carrier contends that the one-hour arbitrary provided for by agreement is absorbed by the guaranteed mileage of this particular assignment. The Board finds that there has been an established past practice of paying engineers this arbitrary under these circumstances and such practice establishes an interpretation of the agreement which makes this claim valid.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2706-Award 5
Neutral: Robert A. Franden
Parties: UTU-E vs. Southern Pacific
Award Date: 1982-06-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of an Engineer for one day's pay at the outside hostlers' rate when required to perform the duties of an outside hostler. During Claimant's yard tour of duty, he was transported by motor vehicle to a point inside the switching limits where he handled a train, tied up under the Hours of Service, into the track in which it was yarded. The Board finds that this case is on all fours with a prior award on this property and incorporates those findings herein.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2378-Award 42-B
Neutral: A. Thomas Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Rwy. Co. (Coast)
Award Date: 1982-06-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Conductor and crew for an additional 100 miles at yard rates. After Claimants took charge of their train, they proceeded to another yard and were required to make a cut of standing cars in order to make their pick-up. They were then required to set hand brakes on the remaining cars so they would not roll out. Organization contends that yard crews were on duty at the time and they should have performed the work. Carrier argues that the work performed by Claimants was incidental to the straight pick-up, which could be required of Claimants under the 1972 National Agreement. The Board finds in favor of the argument progressed by Carrier.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2378-Award 43-B
Neutral: A. Thomas Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Rwy. Co. (Coast)
Award Date: 1982-06-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Conductor and crew for an additional 100 miles when required to make two (2) pick-ups at an intermediate point. Upon arrival at the intermediate point, Claimants cut off their engine and picked up a "dead" locomotive from the roundhouse. They then picked up 36 cars from a yard track and continued their road trip. Yard crews were on duty at the time this work was performed. Holding in accordance with prior awards on this property, the Board finds the handling of "live" units as opposed to "dead" units to be the distinguishing factor and the movements made by Claimants were not in violation of the rules.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2700-Award 2
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: BLE vs. Missouri-Kansas-Texas RR Co.
Award Date: 1982-06-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for one (1) day's pay at yard rates. Claimant was required to set out six (6) cars and pick up a cut of cars at an intermediate point. However, it was necessary to bury a placarded car from those picked up, five cars deep from the head end. Subsequently, eight (8) cars had to be set out as the train exceeded the maximum limit allowed for operation over this territory. The Board finds the work required of Claimant in this case goes beyond what is permissible under the rules.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2693
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago & North Western Trans. Co.
Award Date: 1982-05-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains in part, claims of Conductors for an additional day's pay when required to handle battery packs to and from their caboose. The Board finds that those claims of Conductors who were required to pick up the battery pack at the yard office at their initial terminal for use on the caboose and then return the battery pack to the yard office at the final terminal are denied. However, the Board notes that in certain cases the Conductors were required to take the battery pack with them to their lodging facility and be responsible for the recharging of same for use on the next tour of duty. Under these circumstances the claims are sustained, and since the Board cannot determine from the record which Claimants on which dates were required to perform this off-duty service, it is left to the parties to make such determination and apply this award accordingly.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2703-Award 32 - Claim 1 (a-e)
Neutral: Robert J. Ables
Parties: UTU vs. Union Pacific RR Co.
Award Date: 1982-04-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of various road crews for an additional 100 miles when required to perform the duties of Carmen at an intermediate point. Carrier established a new intermediate point for the purpose of watering, feeding and resting livestock. By bulletin, the Carrier required road crews to perform brake inspections required by the Power Brake Law of 1958. Organization asserts that this work is properly within the jurisdiction of Carmen and prior to the establishment of this station Carmen performed this work at the previous stopping point. The Board finds no doubt that the inspection in issue falls within the Carmen classification. Absent a showing that road crews have previously performed this work, the Carrier was not privileged to undertake such inspection.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2472-Award 32
Neutral: Richard R. Kasher
Parties: UTU-S vs. Southern Pacific - Pacific
Award Date: 1982-04-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains a claim for the three (3) senior Switchmen standing for service for one day at the yard rate of pay. This claim arose when a road crew was required to make a drawbar coupling between the two (2) cars which were added to their train, the organization contending that this work properly belongs to yard crews. The Board sustains this claim, restricted to the peculiar facts as found.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2909-Award 27
Neutral: Gene T. Ritter
Parties: UTU vs. Colorado & Southern Ry. Co.
Award Date: 1982-04-06 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Conductor and Brakemen for 100 miles in addition to all other earnings. Claimants were required to leave their train at an intermediate point and proceed to a point approximately one (1) mile distant to handle a train which was tied up under the Hours of Service Law and blocking the main line. Claimants handled this train back to the intermediate point and then proceeded with their own train. The Board finds that this constituted an emergency and Claimants could properly be required to perform this work.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1872-Award 6
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: UTU vs. Chesapeake & Ohio Rwy. Co.
Award Date: 1982-03-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor and crew for 100 miles at through freight rates in addition to all other time allowed when instructed to assist another train into a yard because it had died under the Hours of Service Law. The Board finds that the Carrier has paid similar claims and the past practice of some 24 years, mutually agreed upon and consistently applied, allowed local freight crews additional compensation when assisting other trains.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2243-Award 48
Neutral: Fred Blackwell
Parties: UTU vs. Soo Line Railroad
Award Date: 1982-03-11 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Yard Foreman and two Helpers for an additional 100 miles when required to chain up a car. Organization contends carmen were on duty at the terminal and should have been used to perform this work. Carrier's position is that the terminal is comprised of several yards and that no carmen were "on-duty" at the location where Claimants performed the work. The Board finds in favor of Carrier's position and claim is denied for lack of rule support.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2859-Award 4
Neutral: A. Thomas Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk & Western Rwy. Co.
Award Date: 1982-03-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Engineer for one (1) penalty day when required to couple hoses between engines of his own train on the dock track. Organization contends this work belongs exclusively to the machinists craft. The Board finds that when applying the rules cited to the claim as made, the rules fail to support the claim.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2859-Award 5
Neutral: A. Thomas Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk & Western Rwy. Co.
Award Date: 1982-03-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Engineer for one (1) penalty day when required to spot his engine on a dock track. Organization contends that this work belongs exclusively to hostlers and cites several rules in support of its position. The Board finds that the Organization has failed to prove clearly and convincingly the "exclusivity" as contended, and this claim falls for lack of rule support.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2195-Award 32
Neutral: Joseph A. Sickles
Parties: BLE vs. Norfolk & Western Rwy. Co.
Award Date: 1982-03-04 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer and Fireman for one (1) yard day. Claimants were assigned to "pusher" service and after assisting a road train into the yard, Claimants were required to shove the caboose to the "top of the hill" when a Yard Brakeman cut the caboose away from the engine and dropped it into the No. 1 track. The Board finds that the Organization has established a prima facie case as to the application of the cited rule and will sustain the claim, but recognizes the precedential value of this award may be only slight.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2909-Award 8
Neutral: Gene T. Ritter
Parties: UTU vs. Colorado & Southern Ry. Co.
Award Date: 1982-02-23 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Yard Foreman and Helpers for a yard day when required to close the rear door of a tri-level auto rack which was fouling the track of Claimant's work site. The Board finds that the Organization failed in its burden of proof that this work belonged exclusively to the Carmens' craft.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2818-Award 3
Neutral: Louis Yagoda
Parties: UTU-E vs. Kansas City Terminal Rwy. Co.
Award Date: 1982-02-12 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Engineer for one day's pay for being required to perform hostling work. The Board finds that the Organization has failed to support a showing that Claimant was either assigned work exclusively designated for hostlers or that there were hostlers on duty to whom such work should have been delegated at the time of its assignment or that Claimant was outside of his jurisdiction.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2496-Award 3
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Atlanta Joint Terminals
Award Date: 1982-01-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies continuing claims of Yard Foremen and Helpers for yarding a foreign carrier's train. The road train's crew died under the Hours of Service Law in their final terminal. A yard crew switched out cars destined for that yard and handled the balance of cars to another Carrier in an interchange movement. The Board finds nothing in the agreement prohibiting this movement.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2496-Award 4
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Atlanta Joint Terminals
Award Date: 1982-01-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claims of Foreman and Switchmen for one day's pay when required to switch out bad order cars in a foreign Carrier's yard. The Board finds that it is generally accepted that an interchange crew receiving cars from a foreign Carrier may properly switch out one or more bad order cars without being entitled to a penalty payment.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2770-Award 3
Neutral: Robert M. O'Brien
Parties: BLE vs. Central Vermont
Award Date: 1982-01-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claims of Engineers on various dates for one day's pay when required to start their engine units prior to commencing their outbound road trips. Organization contends that this work belongs exclusively to hostlers and machinists. Further, requiring an engineer to start his own engine constitutes an expansion of his duties in violation of the Schedule Rules. The Board finds that, although the function of starting locomotives was not previously required of engineers, such work is not inconsistent with an engineer's duties. Further, the Schedule Rules relied upon by the Organization were not violated.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 18-Award 5318
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU-T vs. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.
Award Date: 1982-01-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor for 100 miles on various dates when required to make switch lists and train lists not in connection with his own train.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2682-Award 29
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Consolidated Rail Corp.
Award Date: 1982-01-04 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Conductor for 100 miles when required to work outside his schedule. Claimant, performing service as a passenger conductor, was notified that it would be necessary for his train to make additional station stops because another train was running late. In accordance with the rules on the property, the Board finds that although Claimant's train was also required to make the stops of another train, his train did not lose its original identity.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2678-Award 29
Neutral: Dana E. Eischen
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1982-01-04 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Conductor for an additional day's pay at Road Switcher Rate on the contention that he was required to perform the work of a Telegraph Operator. The Board finds neither contract language, nor practice, nor bargaining history to support the claim.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2453-Award 2
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU vs. Delaware and Hudson
Award Date: 1981-12-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor for an additional day's pay on various dates when required to do certain clerical work in excess of that which may be ordinarily required.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 195-Award 1093
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: UTU-T vs. Grand Trunk Western
Award Date: 1981-12-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Yard Conductor and crew for a basic day when required to perform switching not in connection with their assignment. Organization contends that Claimants were required to classify cars, work outside their assignment, while in the process of transferring twenty-seven (27) cars. The Board finds that it was necessary to move the cars in question in order to get at the twenty-seven (27) cars they were transferring and it was not improper to set the cars on the thoroughfare track.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2703-Award 20
Neutral: Robert J. Ables
Parties: UTU vs. Union Pacific RR Co.
Award Date: 1981-12-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains in part, the claim of Conductor and crew for 100 miles for performing service outside their assigned territory, but denies their claim for an additional two (2) hours and five (5) minutes' switching. Claimant crew was instructed to pick up empty coal cars at a power plant within the switching limits of their turning point, but at a location outside the bulletined territory of their assignment. In sustaining the claim for 100 miles, the Board finds that cars handled at this location have historically been serviced by a switch engine of another railroad, cars delivered by yard crews at this terminal have been considered interchange and road crews of this Carrier have never performed this movement. In denying the claim of two (2) hours and five (5) minutes, the Board finds that if there were multiple switches apart from the switches associated with the move to the power plant, which there were not, the payment would be authorized by the rule.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2378-Award 30-B
Neutral: A. Thomas Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe - Coast Lines
Award Date: 1981-12-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for 100 miles at Herder's rate of pay. Claimant reported for duty with his engine crew at the roundhouse to take a four (4) unit engine consist to his train. However, he was instructed by the Roundhouse Foreman to switch out one unit and take the remaining three (3) units to the train. The Board finds that the activity performed at the roundhouse where roundhouse forces were on duty was not the type of relief contemplated in Article IX of the January 27, 1972 National Agreement or any portion thereof.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2378-Award 36-B
Neutral: A. Thomas Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe - Coast Lines
Award Date: 1981-12-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor and crew for an additional 100 miles at yard rates of pay, but denies claim made for the first out yard crew that stood to protect the service. Upon completion of Claimant's tour of duty on a steam-blower work train, they were instructed to take the entire train consist to the fuel facility. It is contended by the organization that Claimants performed yard work when required to "spot" the train to be serviced on the fuel track. The Board finds in favor of the Organization's contention in that the circumstances surrounding the claim are more persuasive in favor of claimant crew than that of the explanation offered by Carrier in defense of the claim.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2492-Award 26
Neutral: Neil P. Speirs
Parties: UTU vs. Detroit & Toledo Shore Line
Award Date: 1981-11-04 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor and Brakemen for 100 miles at local switcher rate for which called, one (1) hour at road switcher rate for through freight switching, and three (3) hours and fifty-five (55) minutes at road switcher rate for straight-away through freight movement, less amount already paid Claimants for this trip. The Board finds that Claimants were called to perform service as road switchers and thereafter were required to perform through freight service and are therefore entitled to the above payment in accordance with the rules in effect on this property.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2487-Award 24
Neutral: Irving T. Bergman
Parties: UTU-E vs. Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe-E&W
Award Date: 1981-10-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for a yard day when required to couple his train prior to departure. In this case, the road crew coupled their engine to their road train when the head brakeman noticed that the train was not coupled between the first and second car. When the Yardmaster was notified of this, he instructed claimant to couple the train together. The Board finds that the work performed was properly the work of a yard crew and cannot be termed as incidental work in connection with the road crew's own train, in that it is normally the work of a yard crew to assemble the train for pick-up by the road crew at its starting point.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2487-Award 25
Neutral: Irving T. Bergman
Parties: UTU-E vs. Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe-E&W
Award Date: 1981-10-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of an Engineer for one yard day when required to couple his train prior to departure, based upon the findings set forth in Award No. 24 of this Board.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2487-Award 26
Neutral: Irving T. Bergman
Parties: UTU-E vs. Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe-E&W
Award Date: 1981-10-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of an Engineer for one yard day when required to couple his train prior to departure, based upon the findings contained in Award No. 24 of this Board.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2487-Award 27
Neutral: Irving T. Bergman
Parties: UTU-E vs. Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe-E&W
Award Date: 1981-10-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of an Engineer for one yard day when required to couple his train prior to departure, based upon the findings set forth in Award No. 24 of this Board.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1457-Award 23
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: UTU vs. Baltimore & Ohio RR Co.
Award Date: 1981-10-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains in part, the claim of Conductor, Flagman and Brakeman, by allowing one (1) hour's pay instead of the one (1) yard day claimed, when the crew was required to turn their engine consist on a wye. The Board finds this claim to have merit due to a special agreement applicable at the location where this claim arose.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1457-Award 37
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: UTU vs. Baltimore & Ohio RR Co.
Award Date: 1981-10-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains in part, multiple claims of a Conductor and Brakemen by allowing only one day's pay to one Claimant on one claim date. The Board finds that Claimants did perform work not in connection with the movement of their own train when they were required to throw a switch and move a derail in order to expedite the movement of another train. The Board further finds that there is no basis for allowing the claim for the entire crew and that there is no evidentiary justification for any payment for "all subsequent dates" as claimed.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1768-Award 4
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: BLE vs. Burlington Northern, Inc.
Award Date: 1981-10-13 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for one (1) hour at applicable rate for coupling engine units. Claimant was required to pick up an additional unit for his engine consist and it was necessary for him to make all connections between the two units. Carrier contends that this merely constituted an engine change and Claimant could be required to perform this work under the provisions of the 1971 BLE National Agreement. Organization asserts that a 1955 Agreement on the property is supportive of this claim and this agreement has not been superseded by the 1971 National Agreement. The Board finds sufficient evidence presented by the Organization to support its position and this claim must be sustained in view of the provisions of the 1955 Agreement.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2531-Award 33
Neutral: Irving T. Bergman
Parties: UTU-T&C vs. Soo Line RR Co.
Award Date: 1981-10-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakemen for 100 miles when required to assist the Engineer in putting lube oil on the engine. In sustaining this claim, the Board finds that on this property the Carrier has paid claims of the same or similar nature whenever the Engineer or Carrier Officials requested the assistance of the Brakemen, which was the situation in this case.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2760-Award 2
Neutral: Joseph A. Sickles
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk & Western Rwy. Co.
Award Date: 1981-10-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yardmen for one (1) day each for making a brake test on their train prior to movement. Although the Board admits that the matter is not free from all doubt, the Organization has made a prima facia case showing a violation by the Carrier and the Carrier has not rebutted that showing.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2590-Award 35
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Central of Georgia
Award Date: 1981-09-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Conductor for one day's pay when instructed to make a list of the cars that he had lined up for two (2) outbound trains. In keeping with a prior award on this property, the Board finds that Claimant can properly be required to "book" cars which he handled during the course of his tour of duty.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2590-Award 37
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Central of Georgia
Award Date: 1981-09-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies the claim of a Head Brakeman for 100 miles at the Firemans' rate when he was instructed by his Engineer to operate two (2) switches in the locomotive because the traction motor on either the lead unit or a trailing unit was not loading properly. The Neutral cites several awards denying claims of Head Brakemen when required to perform certain duties formerly done by Firemen, and the Board believes that decisional authority and logic favor the Carrier's position.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2590-Award 38
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Central of Georgia
Award Date: 1981-09-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Conductor and Trainmen for one day's pay at car inspector rate when required to inspect their train and make a required brake test. The Board finds that the Organization has produced no contractual restriction to support the instant claim. Further, the Board notes that the Employees have served a Section 6 Notice, dated March 6, 1981, desiring to accomplish that which they are here seeking.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1825-Award 1
Neutral: John B. Criswell
Parties: UTU vs. Georgia Railroad
Award Date: 1981-09-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: The Board finds in favor of the Carrier on three (3) issues involving certain work being required of Conductors. The test is whether the disputed work of recording cars by the Conductor and crews are cars which they are required to handle. If they do handle the cars, they may be required to perform the duties of keeping account in writing as required. There is no showing that employees were required to make reports on cars that they did not handle.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1981-Award 401
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: BLE vs. Southern Pacific Trans. Co.
Award Date: 1981-09-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for four (4) route miles on various dates when required to exchange engines of his train at the turning point of his assignment where hostlers are employed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Carrier's position that this move is permitted by Article V of the May 13, 1971 National Agreement is rejected by the Board in that compensation for route miles as claimed is preserved under a local agreement and not affected by the National Agreement.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2645-Award 37
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern, Inc.
Award Date: 1981-09-04 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of Conductor and Brakemen for one yard day when required to spot their caboose to obtain sufficient heating fuel for their trip. The Board finds that this work properly belonged to yard crews, yard crews were on duty, and that this work was performed by the road crew solely for the convenience of the Carrier.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 423-Award 240
Neutral: Robert A. Franden
Parties: UTU vs. Port Terminal RR Association
Award Date: 1981-09-01 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yardman when required to operate an automobile to transport his crew to their assigned duties. The Board finds, in the instant case, the record supports the Organization's contention that the past practice of the parties leads to an interpretation of the Agreement, such as would require the Carrier to provide an operator for the motor vehicle to transport the crew.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2618-Award 22
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Consolidated Rail Corp.
Award Date: 1981-08-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim for Conductor and crew for an additional day's pay at time and one-half when required to shove beyond the clearance point and couple to standing cars when making an interchange delivery in a foreign yard. Also a like and similar claim is sustained. The Board fin@s that shoving beyond a clearance point is not switching for a foreign Carrier which merits penalty pay. However, the Board holds here, that requiring the delivering crew to make a coupling on the interchange track does constitute unnecessary work for a foreign Carrier. (Carrier Member's Dissent is attached).
View Award
Public Law Board No. 94-Award 309
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk and Western Rwy. Co.
Award Date: 1981-08-03 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor and Brakeman for 100 miles when used off their assignment at their away-from-home terminal and a pool crew performed claimants' normal duties. Claimant crew was regularly assigned to local freight service. While at their away-from-home terminal, Claimants were required to spend their entire tour of duty switching cars while their assignment was operated by a pool crew which had been deadheaded to the point where Claimants performed this service. The Board finds that there is no prohibition against the Claimant crew performing switching service. However, this crew was removed from their regular assignment while their regularly assigned service was performed by a pool crew. The Carrier did not address this issue directly and may have a defense which was not considered by the Board. Therefore, Carrier created the emergency by removing claimant crew from its regular assignment and this claim is valid.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2220-Award 13
Neutral: A. Thomas Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Chesapeake and Ohio Ry. Co.
Award Date: 1981-07-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Yard Engineer and Fireman for one (1) day each at yard rates for performing work in a foreign yard. Claimants delivered an interchange cut to a foreign railroad and set out the entire cut on the designated interchange track. Thereafter, Claimants were instructed to leave their engine and caboose in the clear on No. 3 lead track, in accordance with an operational agreement between these two railroads, and were transported back to their point of origin by taxi. The Organization argues that when the Claimants placed their train into the clear on the designated interchange delivery track, their obligation was ended and any further handling of the train or portion thereof violates the principles of interchange. Carrier contends that Claimants performed no switching moves in the foreign yard and Claimants' caboose constituted no part of the interchange delivery. The Board finds that no compensable service was performed by Claimants. Claimants gathered up their power and caboose, as they normally would be required to do, and then received instructions to place them on No. 3 lead, and were subsequently transported back to their point of origin.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2618-Award 19
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Consolidated Rail Corp.
Award Date: 1981-07-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claims of various Brakemen on various dates for three (3) hours each, when required to assist the Engineer in starting or restarting the engines. The Board finds that claims of this nature have rather uniformly been denied since the expiration of Award No. 282 and the adoption of the Manning Agreement.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2627-Award 21
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: BLE vs. Union Pacific
Award Date: 1981-07-16 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of three Engineers for 100 miles when required to drain units enroute on various dates. The Board finds in favor of the Organization's contention that the draining of water from these units is properly the work of the mechanical forces and not part of the engineer's regular duties.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1312-Award 605
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-CT&T vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1981-07-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor and crew for one day at the yard rate of pay when required to couple their outbound road train and shove back to a ground air line in order to have a terminal air test made by a Carman. The Board finds that this would appear to be "spotting" cars, which could have been properly required of and performed by yard crews. In sustaining the claim, the Board limits is findings to this particular case.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2716-Award 13
Neutral: David Dolnick
Parties: BLE vs. Houston Belt & Terminal
Award Date: 1981-07-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains two claims of a Hostler Helper for eight (8) hours each when required by Master Mechanic to sweep and clean the work area. The Board finds that the work performed was that of another classification and a penalty sufficient to deter the Carrier from continuing such a violation is proper.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2143-Award 110
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1981-06-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer and Fireman for 100 miles when required to double their train together from three (3) tracks. The Board finds that, of the three (3) tracks used, any two tracks would have held the entire train and thus, the third double was unnecessary.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1899-Award 12
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: UTU-E vs. St. Louis Southwestern
Award Date: 1981-05-16 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer and Fireman for 100 miles when required to handle an engine from the roundhouse to the yard and add this engine to the consist of their road train. This case involves the question of whether or not adding or subtracting engine units to outbound or inbound road trains may be properly required of road crews under the provisions of Article V of the 1971 BLE National Agreement and Article IX of the 1972 UTU National Agreement, or whether this is hostling service to be properly performed by hostlers in accordance with the rules in effect on the property. The Board finds that the weight of authority and precedent awards rendered on this property have established that the 1971 and 1972 National Agreements did not supersede pre-existing rules.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2645-Award 5
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern
Award Date: 1981-05-04 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Brakeman for eight (8) hours at the yard Foreman's rate when instructed by proper authority to handle an engine which was not to be added to the engine consist of his train. The Board finds that in this case, the work performed was unquestionably yard work.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 100-Award 415
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: UTU vs. St. Louis Southwestern
Award Date: 1981-04-22 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Footboard Yardmaster and Helpers for 100 miles when used outside their assignment. Claimants were instructed to work as a hump crew while the regular hump crew was taking a meal period. Organization contends that Claimants were used outside their regular assignments and cites agreements and awards on the property in support of this claim. Carrier asserts there is no contractual provision that precluded the Claimant crew from performing the service they did when such service was necessary. Carrier further stresses that under the agreements cited by the Organization, the crew of the hump engine would be entitled to a penalty day, not Claimants. The Board finds that under the agreements, it was not a breach for the yardmaster to require Claimants to perform hump work, while the hump crew was on the premises and not absent performing work elsewhere.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2049-Award 76
Neutral: Gene T. Ritter
Parties: UTU vs. Fort Worth & Denver Ry. Co.
Award Date: 1981-04-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Foreman and crew for one day's pay at the prorata rate when required to assist a foreign railroad crew in completing an interchange delivery. The foreign crew developed engine failure and stalled prior to reaching their delivery point. Claimant crew was then required to couple to the stalled train and clear crossings and Carrier's main line. The Board finds that awards cited by the Organization in support of this claim are not on point and holds in accordance with a prior award stating: "Since the stalled train was on Carrier's property, and within switching limits, and there was good and sufficient reason for getting the stalled train promptly moved, it is difficult to find any valid basis ... to sustain this claim".
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2472-Award 38
Neutral: Richard R. Kasher
Parties: UTU-S vs. Southern Pacific - Pacific
Award Date: 1981-04-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of Switchmen for an additional day at the applicable rates when instructed by the Yardmaster to pick up five cars, couple air and make a delivery of these cars. The Board finds that the Carrier violated the agreement when, after this crew prepared these cars for handling, another crew was used to deliver the cars to their destination.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2472-Award 47
Neutral: Richard R. Kasher
Parties: UTU-S vs. Southern Pacific - Pacific
Award Date: 1981-04-03 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim in favor of the three senior Switchmen standing for service at the applicable rate when a road crew coupled cars prior to the effectuation of the pick-up. In sustaining the claim, the Board notes that there is contradictory evidence regarding whether the road crew was required to make the alleged couplings. Since the Organization's proof is significantly more contemporary to the event and more precise about the incident, this Board will sustain the claim on that basis.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2709-Award 24
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Houston Belt & Terminal
Award Date: 1981-04-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claims of Yard Foremen for additional eight (8) hours while denying the claims for Yard Helpers, when claimant crews were required to perform industrial switching without switch lists. In sustaining the claims of the Yard Foremen, it is the opinion of the Board that the agreement requires that a switch list be provided to the Yard Foreman, but that other members of the crew have no claim since the agreement states that the switch list will be furnished to the Foreman.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2709-Award 29
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Houston Belt & Terminal
Award Date: 1981-04-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yard Foreman for an additional eight (8) hours, and denies claim of Yard Helpers when crew was required to switch six cars without a switch list. Prior awards and settlements on the property warrant sustaining the claim for Foreman only and claim for remainder of the crew is not valid.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2709-Award 30
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Houston Belt & Terminal
Award Date: 1981-04-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yard Foreman for an additional eight (8) hours, and denies claim of Yard Helpers when crew was required to switch twelve cars without a switch list. Prior awards and settlements on the property warrant sustaining the claim for Foreman only and claim for remainder of the crew is not valid.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2709-Award 25
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Houston Belt & Terminal
Award Date: 1981-04-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claims of Yard Foremen for additional eight (8) hours while denying the claims for Yard Helpers, when claimant crews were required to perform industrial switching without switch lists. In sustaining the claims of the Yard Foremen, it is the opinion of the Board that the agreement requires that a switch list be provided to the Yard Foreman, but that other members of the crew have no claim since the agreement states that the switch list will be furnished to the Foreman.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2709-Award 26
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Houston Belt & Terminal
Award Date: 1981-04-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claims of Yard Foremen for additional eight (8) hours while denying the claims for Yard Helpers, when claimant crews were required to perform industrial switching without switch lists. In sustaining the claims of the Yard Foremen, it is the opinion of the Board that the agreement requires that a switch list be provided to the Yard Foreman, but that other members of the crew have no claim since the agreement states that the switch list will be furnished to the Foreman.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2709-Award 27
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Houston Belt & Terminal
Award Date: 1981-04-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claims of Yard Foremen for additional eight (8) hours while denying the claims for Yard Helpers, when claimant crews were required to perform industrial switching without switch lists. In sustaining the claims of the Yard Foremen, it is the opinion of the Board that the agreement requires that a switch list be provided to the Yard Foreman, but that other members of the crew have no claim since the agreement states that the switch list will be furnished to the Foreman.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2709-Award 28
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Houston Belt & Terminal
Award Date: 1981-04-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claims of Yard Foremen for additional eight (8) hours while denying the claims for Yard Helpers, when claimant crews were required to perform industrial switching without switch lists. In sustaining the claims of the Yard Foremen, it is the opinion of the Board that the agreement requires that a switch list be provided to the Yard Foreman, but that other members of the crew have no claim since the agreement states that the switch list will be furnished to the Foreman.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2492-Award 13
Neutral: Neil P. Speirs
Parties: UTU-T&C vs. Detroit & Toledo Shore Line
Award Date: 1981-03-24 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor for the earnings of Flagman when required to perform the duties of both. Carrier contends that an emergency existed in that no Brakemen were available to fill the position of Flagman so a Maintenance of Way man was used to fill the vacancy. Further, no evidence shows that Claimant was required to perform any service within the scope of the Trainmens' Agreement. Finally, claim is progressed for an improper Claimant. The Board finds no showing that an emergency existed as contended by the Carrier, and there is no reason shown why the train could not have been set back to a later time when a rested Trainman would have become available. Notwithstanding that a claim was not filed for a Brakeman, the Board concludes that the only deterrent to continuing violations of this type is to sustain the claim.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2286-Award 30
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: UTU vs. Detroit & Mackinac Railroad
Award Date: 1981-02-16 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies the claim of a train crew for an additional day's pay when required to clean switches and pick crossings. In denying the claim, the Board finds that the work performed by Claimants for the movement of their own train was a part of their regular duties.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2286-Award 32
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: UTU vs. Detroit & Mackinac Railroad
Award Date: 1981-02-16 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a train crew for an additional day's pay when required to switch out an idle engine unit and to pick up another idle engine unit. The Board finds the dead engines were not a part of the power consist and that the handling of such dead engines, separate from the rest of the train and not to the ready track, was a violation of the contract.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2487-Award 12
Neutral: Irving T. Bergman
Parties: UTU-E vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe - E&W
Award Date: 1981-02-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a road freight Engineer for an additional day's pay when required to shove cars out of the way on the tracks of a foreign Carrier. Claimant was operating a train over the tracks of a foreign carrier and found the track leading to the main line blocked by 13 cars. Upon instructions of his Trainmaster, he was required to switch the cars into yard tracks. Carrier's contention that the shoving of these cars was merely incidental to Claimant's assignment was not accepted by the Board in the particular circumstances of this case and the claim was sustained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2701-Award 6
Neutral: Gene T. Ritter
Parties: BLE vs. Colorado & Southern Ry. Co.
Award Date: 1981-02-03 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of an Engineer for 100 miles at the yard rate of pay when, during the course of yarding his train, he was instructed to couple into cars already in the track. It was found that there was an undetermined number of additional couplings to be made on these cars and after receiving proper instructions, claimant and crew made the necessary couplings. The Board finds that this movement violated Article V, Section 1 of the May 13, 1971 BLE National Agreement and the work performed by the road crew was clearly beyond the provisions of that agreement.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2245-Award 79
Neutral: Theodore H. O'Brien
Parties: UTU vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe
Award Date: 1981-01-29 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Yard Crew for an additional day's pay when required to bleed air from 80 cars, part of which were then switched by another yard crew. In sustaining the claim, the Board finds the Carrier presented no evidence that the work to which the Claimant crew was moved constituted other necessary switching which had to be performed without delay and that, thus, the Carrier's handling of the claimant crew was in violation of the established practice on the property.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 894-Award 68
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: BLE vs. Conrail Corp.
Award Date: 1981-01-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for eight (8) hour basic yard day for handling an engine, not part of his consist, from the yard to the enginehouse. The Board finds that Claimant picked up this dead engine with fifty (50) cars off a siding and this engine was being handled as a box car. While the rule does not require units to be in multiple, it does contemplate that they will be part of the power consist. (Carrier Member's Dissent is attached).
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2378-Award 24-B
Neutral: A. Thomas Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Coast Lines
Award Date: 1981-01-16 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies the claim of a Conductor, but sustains the claim of the Brakemen, for an additional 100 miles, when required to make an trip outside of their assignment. Carrier denied the claim on the basis that the additional trip was made for the crew's convenience and not on instructions of the Carrier. In sustaining the claim for the Brakemen, the Board does so on the basis that they were instructed to perform the additional trip by the Conductor.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2278-Award 11
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-S vs. Kansas City Terminal
Award Date: 1981-01-11 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies the claim of a yard crew for an additional day's pay on a contention that they were required to perform service for a foreign line Carrier when, after delivering interchange cars, they were stopped and required to go back and shove the cars to the far end of the receiving track. Carrier contended that Claimants had been instructed to shove the cars high on the receiving track, but had merely placed the cars in the clear. The Board finds that the shoving of the cars beyond the point of clearance is not necessarily in violation of interchange principles.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2561
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago & North Western
Award Date: 1981-01-06 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Conductor and Brakeman for the 205 miles of their regular assignment when called and used to perform service on another district. Carrier contends they had a right to use Claimants in other service because their regular assignment had been annulled temporarily because of snowstorm and derailment. In sustaining the claim the Board finds that regular trains had not been cancelled or annulled, but did operate although subject to difficulties and delays and that Claimants were used in the other service not because the tracks were blocked, but because there were no men available on the other district.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2709-Award 7
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Houston Belt & Terminal
Award Date: 1981-01-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a yard crew for an additional day's pay when required to perform service outside of the regular assignment. Claimants were required to couple to a foreign line train which had died under the Hours of Service Law, move it to the south end of Basin Yard, cut off and set out five live units from the road train and then take the 55 cars of the train and spot them to a gravel company. In sustaining the claim, the Board finds the work required of Claimants in setting off the live engine units at this particular yard to be prohibited by the applicable rule.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2709-Award 10
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Houston Belt & Terminal
Award Date: 1981-01-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a yard crew for an additional day's pay when required to perform service outside of their regularly assigned duties. Claimants were assigned to perform industrial switching and in addition thereto, were required to perform both transfer service and lead switching. In sustaining the claim, the Board finds that settlements on the property have well-established that it is a violation to require employees to perform three classes of service.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2289-Award 73
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Houston Belt & Terminal
Award Date: 1980-12-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yard Foreman and Helpers for an additional day when required to shove cars from one yard to another. Carrier violated the agreement that requires cars be dragged rather than shoved under certain circumstances. Carrier's assertion that FRA orders and the January 27, 1972 National Agreement, providing for the use of walkie-talkie radios supersedes the rule violated, is rejected by the Board in view of identical issues decided previously by this Board on the property.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1981-Award 46
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: BLE vs. Southern Pacific
Award Date: 1980-12-18 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of an engineer for an additional 100 miles when required to perform service outside of his assignment. At an intermediate point, Claimant was required to pick up two engine units and couple in multiple with his engine, after which a yard crew added cars to Claimant's train. In sustaining the claim, the Board held that it was clear that Claimant performed work that was not part of his regular assignment under the applicable rule and that incorporating an outlawed train into your own is the same as hooking onto an outlawed train intact and this is tantamount to pulling a train under the rule.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2438-Award 3
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-E vs. Bangor & Aroostook RR Co.
Award Date: 1980-12-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Fireman for one (1) basic day at the Engineers' rate without a Fireman. Claimant was the Fireman of a crew operating a snow spreader (Jordan plow) train when he was instructed by his Engineer and Maintenance of Way Roadmaster to move an engine and several tank cars from a track in order that it could be cleared. The Board finds that, while there is a dispute in facts necessary for the resolution of this dispute, Claimant was enticed by the Engineer and Roadmaster to do this work and, without establishing any precedent, this claim is sustained for one day's pay.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1938-Award 11
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: UTU vs. Kansas City Southern
Award Date: 1980-12-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies the claims of various yard crews for an additional days' pay on a contention that they were required to complete interchange deliveries by foreign line crews. In each instance, for one reason or another, the crew of the delivering carrier was unable to place all the interchange cars in the designated receiving track. In denying the various claims, the Referee finds some mitigating circumstances that would justify the service performed by the claimant.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 18-Award 5168
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: UTU vs. Southern Pacific
Award Date: 1980-11-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Brakeman for an additional 100 miles when required to assist on another train as a member of the crew. At an intermediate point claimant was required to uncouple his engine from his own train and couple it to another train and help this train for approximately 5-1/2 miles, after which he returned to his own train and completed his trip. The Board finds that Claimant not only assisted a crew in moving a train other than his, but he participated in the assist move as a member of the crew of the assisted train at the direction of the Trainmaster, and that the dispositive factor in this case is the role, rather than the function exercised by the Claimant.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2531-Award 10
Neutral: Irving T. Bergman
Parties: UTU-T&C vs. Soo Line RR Co.
Award Date: 1980-10-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Conductor for an additional 100 miles when required to perform Firemens' duties in assisting the Engineer in starting an engine. On a two-man crew, consisting of an Engineer and Conductor, the Conductor assisted the Engineer in starting the locomotive and keeping it running by operating the starting button and control levers, the throttle and whatever was necessary in the cab, while the Engineer was performing certain other functions at the rear of the unit. In sustaining the claim, the Board finds the duties of a Conductor, as is true of a Trainman, does not include mechanical functions pertaining to the operation of the locomotive and that starting a locomotive is an integral part of its operation which is outside the scope of the duties of a Trainman and/or a Conductor.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2529
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago & North Western
Award Date: 1980-10-22 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a train crew for an additional days' pay when required to leave their train and make a side trip to assist in clearing a derailment by pulling the rear end of the derailed train back to the point where their train had been left and placing the cars on their train for handling on into their final terminal. Carrier contended claimants were properly paid for the additional service under the more than one class of road service rule. The Board finds that an award of this Board issued some seventeen (17) years earlier, even though stating it was not to be cited as a precedent, is controlling in the instant case. In this regard, the Neutral made the following very interesting observation:
"We think that Board awards must be considered on the basis of the findings set forth therein and may not properly be explained or distinguished in later years by submission of extrinsic evidence; such a procedure invites reargument of every past award which has been rendered by the Board. Nor do we think that a Board award may by simply so stating, remove itself from consideration as a precedent in future disputes."
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2243-Award 14
Neutral: Fred Blackwell
Parties: UTU-T&C vs. Soo Line RR Co.
Award Date: 1980-10-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Road Conductor and two Brakemen for an additional days' pay at yard rates when required to spot a car of rail opposite wrecker crane. In sustaining the claim, the Board finds that using the road crew to spot the car was a violation of a Special Agreement that provides that Yardmen have work jurisdiction over "...the switching or movement of cars from one track to another and the spotting of same for loading, unloading, or other purposes...".
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2346-Award 56
Neutral: George E. Larney
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago & North Western
Award Date: 1980-10-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains in part, the claim of a Brakeman by allowing four (4) hours in lieu of the eight (8) hours claimed at yard rates, on a contention that he had been commingled with a yard crew in making a set out in the process of yarding his train. Due to the conflict in the evidentiary record, the Board concludes something avers and on that basis, sustains the claim in part, without prejudice to other similar cases which might arise in the future.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2502-Award 28
Neutral: John B. Criswell
Parties: UTU-E vs. Denver & Rio Grande Western
Award Date: 1980-09-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claims of a Hostler and Hostler Helper for an additional day's pay when outside of territory under jurisdiction of the Master Mechanic. The Board sustains the claims because Claimants were used beyond the limits in which they were entitled to work, not because of the nature of the move they made.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2502-Award 29
Neutral: John B. Criswell
Parties: UTU-E vs. Denver & Rio Grande Western
Award Date: 1980-09-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains a similar case for the same reasons as set forth in Award No. 28, above.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 100-Award 403
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: UTU vs. St. Louis - Southwestern
Award Date: 1980-08-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of an Engineer and one Yard Helper for an additional days' pay when required to move a bad order unit in order to obtain the engine to be used on their assignment. In sustaining the claim for the Engineer and one Helper who actually performed the work, the Board finds that claimants were entitled to have their own engine ready for them when they went on duty and it was Hostlers work to get the yard crew's engine ready for duty.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 100-Award 405
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: UTU vs. St. Louis Southwestern
Award Date: 1980-08-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies the claims of various Engine Foremen for the footboard yardmasters rate of pay when required to furnish list showing time cars were spotted or pulled at industries. In denying the claims, the Board finds that the work required of claimants was incidental to their engine foreman duties and therefore they are not entitled to the additional allowance of the footboard yard-master.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1549-Award 5
Neutral: David P. Twomey
Parties: UTU-C vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1980-08-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Conductor for an additional 100 miles at through freight rates when required to make a brake test at a yard where Carmen were employed and on duty. The Board finds that Carrier violated the clear language of the rules, which include no specific penalty for a violation, and under these circumstances, a basic day is the appropriate payment. Carrier Member's Dissent is attached.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2379-Award 13
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU-S vs. Denver & Rio Grande Western
Award Date: 1980-08-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a yard crew for an additional day's pay when required to leave their regular yard assignment and move a Sperry Rail Car, operated by its own crew, with Claimants handling switches for the move. The Board, in sustaining the claim for the entire crew, finds on principle, the use of the entire crew instead of a single crew member is indistinguishable and in handling the disputed work, Claimants may be viewed as three pilots or three herders, but in either case they were used off their assignment.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2379-Award 14
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU-S vs. Denver & Rio Grande Western
Award Date: 1980-08-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a yard crew for an additional day's pay when after delivering interchange cars to a foreign line carrier and cutting their engine away from the cars on the instruction of the Yardmaster, they were then required to re-couple to the cars and assist the foreign line crew, who had coupled to the opposite end of the cars but was unable to move, in starting the movement. The Board finds Claimants were required to perform service for a foreign carrier upon instructions from its Yardmaster and are therefore entitled to the time claimed.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2286-Award 25
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: UTU vs. Detroit & Mackinac
Award Date: 1980-07-24 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claims of two Brakemen for one (1) day's pay each, at fireman rate. Claimants were required to ride the trailing unit and push re-set button on ground relay when it kicked out. Carrier alleges there were no replacement locomotives and the service performed was insignificant. In sustaining the claims, the Board finds Claimants performed service outside of their craft.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 452-Award 72
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: BLE vs. St. Louis Southwestern
Award Date: 1980-07-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of various Engineers on various dates, for an additional 100 miles, when required to perform service outside of assignment in moving engine units, work which should have been performed by hostlers. The Board finds that on all of the claim dates, hostlers were on duty on a 24-hour per day basis and should have been used to perform the service improperly required of claimants.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 452-Award 75
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: BLE vs. St. Louis Southwestern
Award Date: 1980-07-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of an Engineer for an additional 100 miles when required to make an improper double-over when the track on which train was being yarded was not filled to capacity. The Board finds Organization's position consistent with the Board's Award No. 45, in which it held that the movement required of Claimant was clearly for the convenience of yard crews.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 452-Award 81
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: BLE vs. St. Louis Southwestern
Award Date: 1980-07-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a yard engineer for an additional day's pay when required to perform service outside of his assignment. Claimant was instructed to dismount his engine, pick up another unit and place it on the main track for use by a road crew. The Board finds that the work performed was work which should have been performed by a hostler and was not work incidental to an engine exchange that Claimant could properly be required to perform.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2461-Award 2
Neutral: A. Thomas Van Wart
Parties: UTU-E vs. Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe - Coast Lines
Award Date: 1980-07-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for 100 miles when required to perform service for a foreign carrier. Claimant, working in unassigned helper service, was required by Southern Pacific Dispatcher to couple onto a Southern Pacific engine and tow it to Claimant's home terminal. Organization contends that in so doing, Claimant was performing service for the foreign carrier. After a careful review of the facts and position of the parties, the Board finds the facts support the contention of the Organization.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1128-Award 46
Neutral: William M. Edgett
Parties: UTU vs. Penn Central Transportation
Award Date: 1980-07-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claims of various Firemen required to perform flagging duties normally and in usual circumstances falling within the scope of trainmen's duties. The Board finds Claimant was required to perform duties outside his craft, customarily and historically those of a trainman solely because the Carrier did not choose to have a trainman available for that service.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2054-Award 5
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU-E vs. Southern Pacific Trans. Co.
Award Date: 1980-06-23 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of engineer for one yard day when after yarding his train he was required, by instructions of the Yardmaster, to assist a yard crew in moving the train because the yard engine lacked the power to move all the tonnage on the train. The Carrier contended that Claimant was "asked" rather than "required" to assist the yard crew. The Board finds that under all the circumstances involved, had the Claimant not performed the work he was "asked" to do by the Yardmaster, he would have risked a position of insubordination and therefore the request made by the Yardmaster was the equivalent of an instruction or requirement.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2054-Award 6
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU-E vs. Southern Pacific Trans. Co.
Award Date: 1980-06-23 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of an Engineer for one (1) day's pay at yard rate when required to assist a yard crew as the result of the derailment of a part of his road train at an intermediate point. Carrier contends the road crew performed the service voluntarily. In sustaining the claim, the Board finds this work was actually done and required considerable supervision and instructions, it had not been sufficiently proven that the work was "voluntarily" voluntary.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2054-Award 15
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU-E vs. Southern Pacific Trans. Co.
Award Date: 1980-06-23 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of an Engineer for an additional day's pay at yard rate when required to couple a car that came uncoupled during a back-up move to assemble Claimant's train. The Board finds that while the work required of Claimant was not extensive, it was more than a slight back-up movement, and it was work the yard crew was supposed to do and failed to perform; or if such cars were in fact coupled by the yard crew and later came uncoupled, it was still the yard crew's job.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 175-Award 443
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago, Milwaukee,St. Paul & Pacific
Award Date: 1980-06-16 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains in part, claims of various Conductors for an additional day's pay when required to complete switch lists which should have been prepared by the Operator. The Board finds that the sustained claims were supported by an Agreement providing, ". . . That where agents or operators are employed they will furnish trainmen with switch lists …"
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2352-Award 2
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Colorado & Southern
Award Date: 1980-05-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Yard Helper for an additional yard day when required to operate a turntable in turning a car, but denies the claim of the Foreman and other Helper as neither actually operated the turntable. The Board finds, nothing in the Agreement, including express or implied managerial prerogatives, giving Carrier the authority to require a yardman (or crew) to operate a turntable. In sustaining the claim, only for the claimant actually operating the turntable, the Board expresses the opinion that the crew unit rule is not controlling under the circumstances.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2364-Award 15
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU-C,T&Y vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe
Award Date: 1980-04-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denied claim of a Conductor and two Brakemen for payment of 100 miles when they were to stop short of the terminal for carmen to make an inspection on an air test on their train. Claimants' crew was required to stop their train one mile from change point while carmen made an inspection and car-to-car test on cars picked up enroute. Claimants contend they made the test for the outbound crew. The Board finds that Claimants' crew was still in charge and control of their train at the time of the air test. They were still under pay, had not yarded the train and had not been released. In this case, the Board finds lack of convincing evidence to support the claim and denied the claim for lack of rule support.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2378-Award 3-B
Neutral: A. Thomas Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe (Coast Lines)
Award Date: 1980-04-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Extra Brakeman, in the process of deadheading via bus, (Needles, California to Los Angeles) for service as train baggageman, is sustained in claim for 150 miles, when required to load baggage from station platform to bus at Needles prior to departure. Such duty was outside the scope of Claimant's working agreement. The baggage involved was that of passengers detrained at Needles, and placed aboard the same bus as claimant, for transportation due to a track washout. The Board finds no merit to Carrier's contention that the work Claimant was required to perform was wholly within the scope of his duties and was of such a minimal nature as not to warrant a compensable claim, but sustains the claim on the basis Claimant was required to perform a service not within the scope of his assignment and therefore was entitled to compensation.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 18-Award 5224
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Southern Pacific-Pacific Lines
Award Date: 1980-04-07 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of a Road Switcher Crew for an additional two hundred (200) miles for being required to couple their caboose onto cars at two separate intermediate points, charge the air lines to determine leakage and leave the cars to be picked up by another crew. The Board finds that there were no yardmen or car inspectors employed at the intermediate points, and there is no rule or precedent cited on this property to support the claim.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 18-Award 5232
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Southern Pacific-Pacific Lines
Award Date: 1980-04-07 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Conductor for an additional 100 miles at work train rates when required to prepare a Carrier required Form which should have been prepared and furnished to him.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 18-Award 5233
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Southern Pacific-Pacific Lines
Award Date: 1980-04-07 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains a similar claim for a Conductor required to prepare the same Carrier required Form.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2193-Award 12
Neutral: A. Thomas Van Wart
Parties: BLE vs. Consolidated Rail Corp.
Award Date: 1980-03-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of engineer in local service for an additional day at the yard rate of pay when required to assist a disabled road train within terminal limits into the yard. Carrier denied the claim on the basis that the More Than One Class Of Road Service rule was applicable and was not excluded as to road service performed within the switching limits of a terminal. The Board finds the contention advanced by the employees, that it was service outside of claimant's assignment to be proper and sustained the claim on that basis.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1916-Award 30
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk and Western
Award Date: 1980-03-22 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of a Foreman and a Helper for payment of eight (8) hours when required to clean switches of snow and ice during their tour of duty. Carrier had Maintenance of Way employees on duty in the yard performing snow removal service. Absent a showing that the Carrier failed to make a reasonable effort to have MofW employees perform the work, the Board finds, in the particular circumstances and limited to this case, that Claimants were cleaning switches incidental to movement of their train.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1916-Award 34
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk and Western
Award Date: 1980-03-22 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of a yard crew for an additional day's pay when required to pull a foreign line train, tied up under the Hours of Service Law, into Claimant's yard in order to clear the track blockage promptly and the foreign line Carrier had no crew immediately available to perform the work. The Board finds, under the circumstances involved in this case, it was Carrier's responsibility to clear the track but limits its findings to the facts of this case.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1916-Award 44
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk and Western
Award Date: 1980-03-22 00:00:00
Synopsis: This case involves the same issues, contentions and agreements set forth in Award No. 30 above, and is governed by the reasoning and conclusions set forth therein.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2245-Award 51
Neutral: Theodore H. O'Brien
Parties: UTU vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe - Coast Lines
Award Date: 1980-03-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of a yard crew for an additional day's pay each for being required to switch two cars from Track A-8 to Track X-11 for delivery back to the Union Pacific Railroad. The cars had been delivered in error by the Union Pacific to the Santa Fe. Organization contends the Carrier had knowledge of the error prior to the delivery and the work required of Claimants was therefore contrary to a Letter of Understanding on the property. Carrier contends the error was not discovered until after the delivery was made and the handling of the cars was proper and in accordance with the Letter of Understanding. The Board finds no evidence to support the Organization's position that Carrier knew of the error before the cars were delivered. Thus, the Organization failed to sustain its burden of proof in the instant claim and the claims will be denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2245-Award 52
Neutral: Theodore H. O'Brien
Parties: UTU vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe - Coast Lines
Award Date: 1980-03-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claims involving different circumstances, but based on the principle as in Award No. 51 above.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2473
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago & North Western
Award Date: 1980-03-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claims of various Conductors for one (1) day's pay at road rate when required to handle company mail during their tour of duty. When passenger trains were discontinued, company mail was diverted to freight trains requiring Conductors to handle it. As a result, the Organization and Carrier executed an agreement allowing for an arbitrary for such extra work. Subsequently, Carrier stopped even partial shipment of intracompany mail by U.S. Mail and had all mail, industry pouches, diesel parts and heavy material handled by freight Conductors. The Organization met with the Carrier but was unsuccessful in their efforts to increase the arbitrary allowance, and therefore, cancelled the agreement on the handling of mail and filed claims for an additional day's pay. In denying the claim, the Board finds that this is a matter for negotiations between the parties, not for adjudication by the Board.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2245-Award 53
Neutral: Theodore H. O'Brien
Parties: UTU vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe - Coast Lines
Award Date: 1980-03-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claims involving different circumstances, but based on the principle as in Award No. 51 above.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2245-Award 54
Neutral: Theodore H. O'Brien
Parties: UTU vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe - Coast Lines
Award Date: 1980-03-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claims involving different circumstances, but based on the principle as in Award No. 51 above.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2289-Award 38
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-T vs. Houston Belt and Terminal Railway Co.
Award Date: 1980-02-29 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of a yard crew for an additional day's pay when Conductor was required to mark switch lists. Claimants contend the marking of switch lists constitutes a violation of the rules on the property. In denying the claim, the Board finds that the work performed by the Engine Foreman was incidental to his duties and was not in violation of any agreement and also pointed out that claims of such nature did not involve the whole crew.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2289-Award 40
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-T vs. Houston Belt and Terminal Railway Co.
Award Date: 1980-02-29 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of a Yard Crew for an additional day's pay when required to shove seventy-three (73) interchange cars into a track of the receiving Carrier and the head car and rear car was not equipped with a walkway on top of the car as required by agreement. Although the rule was agreed-to after the Federal Railroad Administrations Regulations were issued requiring the removal of running boards or walkways from all freight cars, the Board finds the parties could not lawfully enter into a contract to do something which is unlawful, to wit - equipping cars with walkways and therefore no merit to the instant claims.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 100-Award 391
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: UTU vs. St. Louis-Southwestern
Award Date: 1980-02-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of an extra road switcher crew for an additional 100 miles when required to make a second turnaround trip out of their initial terminal during a single tour of duty. Claimants were called for extra road switcher service to operate to Pine Bluff Arsenal and return. Upon reporting for duty and prior to performing the service for which called, they were sent to an outside point to bring in a train "outlawed" under the Hours of Service Law. The Board finds that the moves made with the extra crew are not authorized by the governing Agreement, which is applicable only to regular assignments and not extra assignments.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 100-Award 392
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: UTU vs. St. Louis-Southwestern
Award Date: 1980-02-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of an extra road switcher crew for an additional 100 miles when required to make a second turnaround trip out of the initial terminal during the same tour of duty. The Board finds that the findings in Award No. 391 are relevant and applicable to this case and are incorporated by reference and made a part hereof.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 100-Award 393
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: UTU vs. St. Louis-Southwestern
Award Date: 1980-02-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of an extra road switcher crew for an additional 100 miles when required to make a second trip out of the terminal during the same tour of duty. This claim sustained on the same basis and for the same reasons set forth in Award No. 391.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2330-Award 3
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Southern Pacific Trans. Co.
Award Date: 1980-01-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of train crews for payment of an additional 100 miles at yard rates on a contention they were required to perform yard work when a different route or running track was used in making an interchange delivery to a foreign line carrier. Claimants operating in "Bridge Route Territory" on tracks of a foreign line carrier were required to pull through a yard track of that carrier to effect an interchange delivery because the normal route, the main line track, was blocked with cars. The Board finds that Claimants did not move through the yard track to perform yard work or switching duties, but only to make a permissible interchange move and the fact that they reached the designated interchange track by another yard track because the main line was blocked does not convert the otherwise permissible move into an impermissible or contractually violative move.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2089-Award 71
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.
Award Date: 1980-01-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of a Through Freight crew for an additional day's pay at yard rate for being required to set out a unit of the locomotive consist at an intermediate point enroute to their home terminal. The Board finds that after the agreement establishing Rockwell Yard as a terminal had been negotiated, the Carrier filed a request to the General Chairman to permit road crews to handle engines between the terminal and the intermediate point, however the request was denied. In sustaining the claim, the Board concludes, absent a showing that an award of the First Division on this property should not be followed, the claim will be sustained.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 423-Award 232
Neutral: A. Thomas Van Wart
Parties: UTU-T vs. Port Terminal RR Assn.
Award Date: 1979-12-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Yardman for an additional day's pay when required, by instructions of the Yardmaster, to assist with the work of another assignment. The Board finds that while it may have been an expeditious train movement that saved time and considerable leg work for the ground crews, it was not proper to require one man of a job to do work for another member of another job.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1922-Award 121
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-S vs. Southern Pacific
Award Date: 1979-11-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claims of yard crews for an additional day's pay on a contention that their agreement was violated when Carrier took them from their usual location and character of work and required them to perform a preponderance of each shift pulling and spotting cars on repair track at the Car Shop. The Neutral held that the record does not establish that Claimants were taken out of their customary work limits or that the normal character of their work was changed in that Claimants ordinarily perform switching at the Car Shop.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1922-Award 127
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-S vs. Southern Pacific
Award Date: 1979-11-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of a Switchman Herder and other claims of record for an additional day's pay at the yardmaster rate on a contention that he was required to relay yarding instruction to road crews. The Neutral held that there is no evidence that Claimant prepared or initiated the instructions and that all he did was transmit orders for the sole purpose of assisting yard movements. That by transmitting such instructions, Claimant did not assume the responsibility of a yardmaster.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2160-Award 31
Neutral: Irving T. Bergman
Parties: UTU-T vs. Burlington Northern
Award Date: 1979-10-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of a work train conductor for a second additional day's pay when required to copy two train orders during a single tour of duty. Claimant was required to copy a train order on two separate occasions and since no emergency existed in either instance, he claimed an additional 100 miles for each occurrence. The Carrier allowed one claim for an additional 100 miles and the Neutral held that the Organization had failed to demonstrate by rule, agreement or past practice, that the second claim was justified.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1929-Award 7
Neutral: P. M. Williams
Parties: UTU-T&C vs. Illinois Terminal Railroad
Award Date: 1979-10-18 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer, conductor and yard helpers sustained for eight (8) hours each on September 3, 1976, when required to switch out bad order cars in the Peoria and Pekin Union Yard while in the process of picking up interchange cars for delivery to claimants' home yard on the Illinois Terminal Railroad. Similar claims for August 13, August 31 and September 7, 1976, are denied when engineer and trainmen claimants failed to prove they performed such switching.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1479-Award 7
Neutral: Morris L. Myers
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern, Inc.
Award Date: 1979-09-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Foreman and Helpers denied an additional day's pay while in transfer service and required to pick up a Milwaukee Road train from one yard in a consolidated terminal after the road crew's time expired under Hours of Service and move train to another yard within the consolidated terminal. Claimants did not "dogcatch" a road train, in violation of rules, but performed transfer service all within the consolidated switching limits pursuant to the Burlington Northern - Milwaukee Road Agreement.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 423-Award 228
Neutral: A. Thomas Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Port Terminal Railroad
Award Date: 1979-08-24 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of a yard crew for an additional yard day when required by the Carrier to clear the main line of a stalled foreign line train using Port Terminal tracks in the exercise of "bridge rights".
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 175-Award 406
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Milwaukee Road-Lines West
Award Date: 1979-08-23 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of an Engineer for an additional 100 miles when required to add water to a slave unit in his train at a terminal where round house forces are assigned around the clock.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1305-Award 154
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU-E vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1979-08-01 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of an Engineer for an additional yard day when called to relieve an engineer under the Hours of Service Law and handle Train 94 from Lima to Toledo. Claim was sustained on the basis that work required of Claimant at Lima Terminal was work that should have been performed by the inbound crew or a yard crew then on duty and not Claimant.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2050-Award 44
Neutral: Joseph A. Sickles
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk & Western
Award Date: 1979-07-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: Conductor and brakemen in road freight service are sustained for an additional day when required to perform work train service while operating on trackage of another seniority district. Applicable rule provides that work train service will be manned by employees from the seniority district on which the first actual work and/or wreck train service is to be performed.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2053-Award 22
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-E vs. Denver & Rio Grande Western
Award Date: 1979-06-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Hostler and Hostler-Helper sustained for an additional 100 miles when required to move engine from diesel house tracks to a live yard switching track. Despite carrier argument that such move was under jurisdiction of Master Mechanic, yard switching was performed.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1401-Award 3
Neutral: Robert M. O'Brien
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern
Award Date: 1979-06-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: Various claims of conductors and brakemen for an additional 100 miles alleging performance of additional duties are denied. Neutral finds no merit to claim of additional duties when required to open and close car doors for customs inspection at U.S.-Canadian border.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2134-Award 2
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU vs. Union Railroad Company
Award Date: 1979-06-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a yard crew for eight hours' penalty time on each of three dates they were required to perform general switching work in addition to the dates of their regular assignment. Claimants were a regularly assigned hot metal crew and on the three claim dates, were required to perform general switching work in violation of the agreement which expressly provides that they will not do other types of yard work, except pusher service. The Board finds that the work required of Claimants comes within the category of "other type of yard work."
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2314-Award 5
Neutral: Kay McMurray
Parties: BLE vs. Houston Belt & Terminal Rwy. Co.
Award Date: 1979-06-07 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of Engineer for an additional day's pay at hostler rates when required to move another engine on the instructions of the yardmaster prior to taking charge of his own engine. The work performed was admittedly that normally accomplished by a hostler. The yardmaster alleged he could not recall instructing claimant to perform the work. The Board finds yardmaster's statement that one cannot recall an instruction does not constitute a denial that the instruction was given and that the claim filed by the Claimant must be given some credence.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 175-Award 418
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Milwaukee Road-Lines West
Award Date: 1979-05-31 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claims of two Conductors for an additional payment of a yard day when required to make their own initial terminal air test. The Neutral held that the Carrier's contention that no carmen were available because of emergent conditions was not supported by the record.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1459-Award 110
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-E vs. Chicago and Northwestern
Award Date: 1979-05-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims of two (2) hostlers for an additional yard day are denied when required to turn cars of sand on the wye. Neutral finds that wye is connected on both ends with the enginehouse track, therefore the work was performed within the enginehouse area, rather than the general yard.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1459-Award 112
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-E vs. Chicago and Northwestern
Award Date: 1979-05-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Fireman (helper), on yard engine assignment, denied a hostler day when required to make multiple unit connections between diesel units to be used on road assignments. Claim falls for lack of a rule making the work exclusive to hostlers or mechanics none of which were on duty when the work was performed.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 100-Award 330
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: UTU-T vs. St. Louis Southwestern
Award Date: 1979-05-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of a yard crew for an additional day's pay when required to replace air hose on a car pulled from an industrial plant located approximately three miles from the train yard. The car had been placed at the plant seven days prior to claim date and while being spotted, the air hose was pulled off. The Organization argued that since the Carrier knew the air hose had to be replaced before the car could be moved, it should have required the Car Department to perform the work. The Carrier argued that such work is incidental to the movement of cars by trainmen and that neither the Conductor's, Yardmen's, Brakemen's, nor Carmen's Agreement contains a provision that the changing or replacing of air hose specifically belongs to these crafts. The Neutral held that the weight of the evidence supports the Carrier's position and that neither carmen nor trainmen, including yardmen have any exclusivity with regard to handling air hose, and that both crafts, in the exercise of their normal and customary duties, may deal with air without working outside their craft lines.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2218-Award 3
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Atlanta & West Point
Award Date: 1979-05-03 00:00:00
Synopsis: Trainman denied 100 miles at respective rates when required to assist engineers in restarting diesel locomotives in the absence of a fireman (helper). Neutral relies on previous denial Award No. 60, Public Law Board No. 1532 and reverses precedent of Award No. 2, Public Law Board No. 2012.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2218-Award 6
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Atlanta & West Point
Award Date: 1979-05-03 00:00:00
Synopsis: Conductor denied 100 miles at respective rates when required to assist engineers in restarting diesel locomotives in the absence of a fireman (helper). Neutral relies on previous denial Award No. 60, Public Law Board No. 1532 and reverses precedent of Award No. 2, Public Law Board No. 2012.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2106-Award 5
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: BLE vs. Toledo Terminal Railroad
Award Date: 1979-04-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of a Hostler for an additional day's pay when, during his tour of duty in hostling service, he was required to assist in the work of retailing a caboose derailed by another crew with insufficient time to perform the retailing work. The Neutral held, the work of retailing a caboose is not hostling work as traditionally recognized, and no emergency existed.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1459-Award 97
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-E vs. Chicago and Northwestern
Award Date: 1979-03-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer and Fireman (Helper) denied a day at through freight rate when operating over tracks of the Milwaukee Road. They were required to couple into and move a defective car to the repair track. Neutral finds that claimants did not perform a service for a foreign carrier but merely cleared the track for their own forward movement.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 195-Award 1046
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: UTU-T vs. Grand Trunk Western
Award Date: 1979-03-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims of two (2) yard ground crews sustained for a basic day each when required to clean snow from switches. Neutral finds that carrier, for no adequate reason, failed to have section crews available to perform the work.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2151-Award 1
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Philadelphia, Bethlehem & New England
Award Date: 1979-03-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Fireman (Helper) on district switcher sustained in the difference between rate of pay for fireman and engineer. He was required to make a switching move by the yardmaster while the regularly assigned engineer was absent from the locomotive and answering a "call of nature."
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1810-Award 1
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-E vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe-E
Award Date: 1979-02-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineers who were required to "make-up" a diesel consist of live engines in the yard are sustained for one (1) hour at the outside hostler rate under applicable agreement on the property.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2067-Award 31
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation
Award Date: 1979-02-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Conductor and brakemen sustained in the amount of three (3) additional hours each when required to perform service on a branch line outside the advertised route of their regular assignment. Claimants were mishandled in violation of the assignment rule.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1922-Award 78
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-S vs. Southern Pacific
Award Date: 1979-02-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Various claims of switchmen sustained for an additional day at yard rate when removed from their switching duties and required to operate company vehicles to transport crew members of road trains.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1922-Award 80
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-S vs. Southern Pacific
Award Date: 1979-02-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of switchman-herder denied for an additional day at yard rate when per instructions of the yardmaster, he was required to move a chair from the locker room and place it in the caboose of an outbound road train. Claim denied in accord with doctrine of "de minimis."
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1922-Award 81
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-S vs. Southern Pacific
Award Date: 1979-02-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Various claims of engine foremen denied for an additional day at yard rates. Neutral finds that claimants in delivering waybills covering cars picked up in interchange involved so little time, inconvenience and difficulty as to be considered "de minimis."
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1922-Award 79
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-S vs. Southern Pacific
Award Date: 1979-02-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Various claims of switchmen sustained for an additional day at yard rate when removed from their switching duties and required to operate company vehicles to transport crew members of road trains.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 100-Award 335
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: UTU-T vs. St. Louis Southwestern
Award Date: 1979-01-31 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of a Footboard Yardmaster for an additional day's pay when taken from his regular assignment and required to fill a vacancy in the position of Car Retarder Operator. After working four hours on his regular position as Footboard Yardmaster, Claimant, a qualified Car Retarder Operator, was taken therefrom to fill the position of a Car Retarder Operator who had been relieved because of illness, as there were no extra yardmen available who were qualified for this position. The Neutral held that the Claimant was paid the highest rate for all service performed and that is all that the contract provisions require.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2149-Award 5
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-E vs. Santa Fe - Coast Lines
Award Date: 1979-01-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer denied claim of a day at the outside hostler rate when he was required to stop at the fuel rack in order to fill the tanks of two (2) units in the diesel consist. Neutral finds no merit to the claim since it was a continuous forward movement of the train during departure from the terminal.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2149-Award 8
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-E vs. Santa Fe - Coast Lines
Award Date: 1979-01-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer sustained in claim for a day at the outside hostler rate when required to add a diesel unit to his consist by picking up the locomotive off yard track prior to departure.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2149-Award 9
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-E vs. Santa Fe - Coast Lines
Award Date: 1979-01-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer sustained in claim for a day at the outside hostler rate when required to break up diesel consist upon arrival at terminal by taking three (3) diesel units to the enginehouse and leaving three (3) diesel units attached to the train.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2149-Award 13
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-E vs. Santa Fe - Coast Lines
Award Date: 1979-01-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer denied claim of a day at the outside hostler rate. After taking five (5) units from the enginehouse to his train, it was found that a vent valve on one (1) unit would not reseat. Claimant then returned the five (5) units to the roundhouse where the unit with the defect was removed. Claimant returned to his train with four (4) units and departed on road trip. Neutral finds no merit to claim, since engineer involved merely operated his locomotive consist to and from the enginehouse and train located on the yard track.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 175-Award 349
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Milwaukee Road - West
Award Date: 1979-01-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yard foreman and helpers sustained for a minimum yard day when required to rerail a car derailed by the crew of a foreign carrier.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 175-Award 373
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Milwaukee Road - West
Award Date: 1979-01-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yard foreman and helpers denied claims of 9 hours and 8 hours respectively when they assisted a carman in securing a brake rigging which was down on a car they were placing in a rip track. Neutral finds time consumed constituted but a slight accommodation and denies on the doctrine of "de minimus".
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 175-Award 376
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Milwaukee Road - West
Award Date: 1979-01-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Brakeman sustained for 100 local freight miles at fireman's rate when he was ordered by the engineer to isolate a trailing unit by cutting out the # 1 traction motor and resetting the ground relay. Neutral finds doubtful merit to the claim but sustains by taking strong exception to the superintendent's declination denying right of engineer to order brakeman's assistance.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2081-Award 20
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern
Award Date: 1978-12-18 00:00:00
Synopsis: Employees fail to disprove carrier evidence of a historic practice requiring yardmen to replace knuckles and pins on cars handled during tour of duty without additional compensation even when carmen are on duty. Claims of yard foreman and helpers for an additional day at yard rate are denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 364-Award 187
Neutral: William H. Coburn
Parties: UTU-T vs. Erie Lackawanna
Award Date: 1978-11-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of brakeman for 100 miles at fireman (helper) rate dismissed without prejudice. Claimant contends for penalty when, at the direction of the engineer, he apparently reset a ground relay in the absence of a fireman. Neutral finds that time required and labor performed was so minimal that rule of "De Minimis" applies.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2154-Award 6
Neutral: Neil P. Speirs
Parties: BLE vs. Southern Pacific - T&L
Award Date: 1978-11-13 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer denied a yard day alleging that he was required to move the first-out engine on the receiving track in order to operate his locomotive to the yard to commence work. Neutral denies finding that claimant performed the work voluntarily without instruction from the yard conductor of his crew or the yardmaster on duty.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2178
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago and North Western
Award Date: 1978-09-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims of various conductors denied when required to handle company mail. Claims arose when local chairman used his right to cancel a local agreement with the carrier which paid claimants 1/2 cent per mile with a minimum of 50 cents per basic day or trip for handling said mail. Local chairman further advised the carrier that concurrent with his cancellation of the aforementioned agreement claims for an additional basic day would be forthcoming when conductors were required to handle company mail. Neutral reasons that prior to the local agreement the work was performed for nothing. Therefore, when the local chairman cancelled the agreement claimants reverted to prior status and could again be expected to do the work for nothing.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1312-Award 323
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1978-09-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Brakeman sustained in the amount of one (1) day at road switcher rate when he held the lay shaft in helping the engineer start the locomotive. Claimant performed the exclusive duties of a fireman (helper) not assigned to the run involved.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1312-Award 325
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1978-09-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of brakeman for one (1) day at fireman's rate along with claim of another brakeman for one (1) day at brakeman's rate sustained. Both claimants performed fireman's duties in the absence of a fireman by resetting a ground relay during a road trip.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1312-Award 326
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1978-09-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of brakeman for one (1) additional day denied on contention that he performed enginemen's duties in passing signals from the fireman's seat when no fireman assigned. Claimant sustained in the amount of one (1) hour arbitrary for coupling appurtenances so ordered by the engineer when adding diesel units.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1312-Award 328
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1978-09-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Brakeman denied claim for one (1) day when ordered by the dispatcher to assist the engineer in apparently taking cooling water on the diesel units of his train at an intermediate point. Neutral denies solely on basis of trainmen's schedule rule stating "Work Not Required of Trainmen." Said rule does not bar train service employees from taking water.
View Award
First Division, N.R.A.B. -Award 23112
Neutral: Robert M. O'Brien
Parties: UTU vs. Delaware & Hudson
Award Date: 1978-08-04 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of conductor in local freight service, and continuing claim of others, for a penalty day when required to throw switches, flag, etc., is denied. Neutral finds that claimants may be required to perform such duties incidental to the operation of their own trains. Such work is not exclusively that of a brakeman.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2010-Award 10
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU-S vs. Texas Pacific-Missouri Pacific
Award Date: 1978-07-24 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engine foreman and helpers denied claims for an additional day contending they performed carmen duties in coupling, bleeding and performing air test of cars picked up. Neutral denies on basis of existing rule disallowing such payments when coupling and bleeding involves cars to be handled by the crew involved. Finding also indicates that testing air is not a duty exclusively reserved to carmen.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1631-Award 22
Neutral: Joseph A. Sickles
Parties: UTU-E vs. Illinois Central Gulf
Award Date: 1978-07-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer sustained in claim for 94 miles when after receiving three (3) diesel units at the roundhouse he was instructed to move them to the yard where he was to couple and connect cables with other diesel units already on the train. Neutral finds the work was properly that of roundhouse forces. Fireman (helper) of same crew denied identical claim of 94 miles. Neutral finds that applicable rule allows claimant a thirty (30) minute arbitrary which carrier paid.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1631-Award 23
Neutral: Joseph A. Sickles
Parties: UTU-E vs. Illinois Central Gulf
Award Date: 1978-07-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer denied claim for 100 miles when required to inspect locomotive prior to trip and sign federal locomotive inspection Form 1251. Neutral somewhat erroneously fails to draw a line between this work previously and exclusively that of a machinist now required of the engineer. He does stipulate in his findings that if claimant feels he is required to violate federal rules he should file a complaint with the proper federal agency.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 550-Award 480
Neutral: Louis E. Seltzer
Parties: UTU-T vs. Former Penn-Central
Award Date: 1978-07-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yard conductor and crew denied a basic day for weighing cars on an industry scale. Neutral notes applicable rule allows claimants to weigh cars without exception as to the railroad or an industry scale.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1973-Award 6
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-E vs. Former Penn-Central
Award Date: 1978-06-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims of two (2) firemen (helpers) denied when required to throw switches for movements to and from the roundhouse while working on light engines. Neutral not only refuses to follow precedent of a prior First Division Award on the property, but goes far afield in his finding that throwing switches in the case of firemen was the intent of Article IX of the January 27, 1972 Agreement.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 18-Award 5107
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Southern Pacific-Pacific
Award Date: 1978-05-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Conductor and brakemen did not perform additional duties when in departing the terminal with their train they were required to pass over an automatic electronic weighing scale without stopping. Claim for an additional 30 minutes' terminal delay is without rule support and is denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2080-Award 3
Neutral: Robert O. Boyd
Parties: UTU-T vs. Birmingham Southern
Award Date: 1978-05-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Switchman, who performed a brake test on a train in which he was engaged in transferring to another carrier, denied an additional yard day. Neutral finds sufficient evidence presented by the carrier that no car inspector was on duty in the yard at the time said brake test was made.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2080-Award 4
Neutral: Robert O. Boyd
Parties: UTU-T vs. Birmingham Southern
Award Date: 1978-05-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Switchman performed the work of a car inspector when ordered by a road conductor to make a brake test of the conductor's train and a car inspector was on duty in the yard. Carrier excuse that no supervisory official ordered the switchman to perform the work set aside by the neutral with findings that the conductor had the authority to order the work done. Switchman sustained for an additional day.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1532-Award 15
Neutral: Murray M. Rohman
Parties: UTU vs. Santa Fe - Coast Lines
Award Date: 1978-05-25 00:00:00
Synopsis: Neutral finds that on trains operating without a fireman (helper) subsequent to consummation of the U.T.U. Manning Agreement of July 19, 1972, a brakeman required to perform mechanical duties on a locomotive is to be denied compensation for work outside his assignment. Neutral fails to explain his logic as to how the manning agreement changed the exclusiveness of mechanical duties performed by enginemen. In other awards of this board he is willing to sustain claims of brakemen under identical circumstances for services performed on engines prior to July 19, 1972 while firemen (helper) jobs were blanked during the period of mandatory work rules imposed by the Award of Arbitration Board No. 282.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1532-Award 60
Neutral: Murray M. Rohman
Parties: UTU vs. Santa Fe - Coast Lines
Award Date: 1978-05-25 00:00:00
Synopsis: Brakeman sustained in the amount of 175 miles at firemen's rate of pay when required to perform mechanical duties on the locomotive when no fireman (helper) in the crew. Neutral follows previous findings set forth in Award No. 15, this board, that trainmen were not allowed to perform such duties prior to consummation of the U.T.U. Fireman-Helper Manning Agreement of July 19, 1972.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2114-Award
Neutral: Francis X. Quinn
Parties: UTU-T vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation
Award Date: 1978-05-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Unnumbered Award. Neutral decides question at issue in favor of the carrier by ruling that trainmen assigned to self-propelled, multiple unit passenger commuter cars may be required to activate or deactivate an automatic train control system by "flipping" a switch located in the passenger compartment outside the engineer's operating cab.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1678-Award 24
Neutral: Louis Yagoda
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk & Western
Award Date: 1978-05-11 00:00:00
Synopsis: Pool freight brakeman denied an additional day for cleaning ballast from points of a power switch which, at the time was inoperable from the dispatcher's panel. Neutral finds that claimant performed only minimal work of an incidental nature which was of short duration and not burdensome. Therefore, it must be classified as deminimis.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1932-Award 12
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-T vs. Houston Belt & Terminal
Award Date: 1978-05-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yardman denied a penalty day when orders for switching were delivered to him by the trainmaster instead of by the yardmaster as provided for by the schedule rules. Neutral denies on finding that the orders contained the yardmaster's mimeographed signature and need not be signed with the yardmaster's written signature for purposes of rule compliance.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1932-Award 18
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-T vs. Houston Belt & Terminal
Award Date: 1978-05-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yard zone rules, setting forth the area of work for a particular yard assignment, were not violated when a crew was required to switch an industry in a zone where no yard engine was assigned. Yard foreman and helpers denied in claim for an additional day.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1746-Award 8
Neutral: Robert M. O'Brien
Parties: UTU vs. Green Bay & Western
Award Date: 1978-05-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yard ground crew did not perform additional duties outside their assignment by lining switches for a road train and denied an additional eight (8) hours each. Neutral finds that claimants were not instructed to line the switches for the train involved but were merely told to leave the switches lined following a move through them in performing their work.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 550-Award 471
Neutral: Louis Yagoda
Parties: UTU-T vs. Former Penn Central
Award Date: 1978-05-01 00:00:00
Synopsis: Conductor on turnaround local freight sustained in the amount of an additional day when required to sign waybills for release of cars from an industry which constituted a pick-up. Neutral finds this act outside the duties of claimant and properly the work of a station agent.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2012-Award 2
Neutral: David P. Twomey
Parties: UTU-T vs. Burlington Northern (SP&S)
Award Date: 1978-04-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yardman sustained for an additional yard day when requested by engineer to assist in re-starting a diesel unit when train to which it was attached was stalled blocking main line and grade crossings. Neutral finds that engineer had the authority to direct the yardman's assistance and carrier cannot be relieved of responsibility under the circumstances.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1922-Award 35
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-S vs. Southern Pacific
Award Date: 1978-04-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Switchmen denied various claims for an additional day when after being required to couple air hoses or bleed air from cars they were then required to handle said cars in a yard movement or perform switching with the cut involved.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1922-Award 36
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-S vs. Southern Pacific
Award Date: 1978-04-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Switchmen sustained in various claims for an additional day when after being required to couple air hoses or bleed air from cars they were not then instructed or required to move, deliver, switch or handle any of the cars involved.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1948-Award 34
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU vs. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe
Award Date: 1978-04-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Various claims of trainmen for 100 miles denied when claimants were required to spot their road engines at a specific point on a tie up track which happened to be a fuel servicing facility.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1922-Award 38
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-S vs. Southern Pacific
Award Date: 1978-04-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Switchmen denied various claims for an additional day when after being required to couple air hoses or bleed air from cars they were then required to handle said cars in a yard movement or perform switching with the cut involved.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1922-Award 39
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-S vs. Southern Pacific
Award Date: 1978-04-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Switchmen sustained in various claims for an additional day when after being required to couple air hoses or bleed air from cars they were not then instructed or required to move, deliver, switch or handle any of the cars involved.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1922-Award 43
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-S vs. Southern Pacific
Award Date: 1978-04-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Switchmen sustained in various claims for an additional day when after being required to couple air hoses or bleed air from cars they were not then instructed or required to move, deliver, switch or handle any of the cars involved.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1939-Award 9
Neutral: John B. Criswell
Parties: UTU vs. Colorado & Southern
Award Date: 1978-03-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Brakeman sustained in the amount of a yard day when acting upon instructions of the yardmaster he was required to line a switch for foreign line train at a location where a switchtender was on duty.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1940-Award 2
Neutral: William M. Edgett
Parties: UTU vs. Canton Railroad
Award Date: 1978-03-23 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer and fireman (helper) did not perform the work of a foreign carrier when they shoved a Conrail work train several car lengths necessary to gain entry into an industrial plant. Neutral finds long standing industry precedent which provides that a crew may be required to clear its route to perform work without payment of additional compensation. Claim of basic day denied.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 195-Award 1008
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: UTU-T vs. Grand Trunk Western
Award Date: 1978-03-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yard conductor and brakemen did not perform additional yard work or invade the exclusive area jurisdiction of another assignment by making a point to point movement through the yard where the other crew was performing service. Claims for an additional basic day denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1532-Award 56
Neutral: Murray M. Rohman
Parties: UTU vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe-Coast Lines
Award Date: 1978-03-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Conductors denied pay for additional day claimed when required to sign bills of lading covering shipments contained in cars picked up at intermediate points when either no agent was on duty or no agent assigned. Claim denied for lack of rule.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1767-Award 2
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: UTU vs. Clinchfield
Award Date: 1978-03-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Employee, unidentified by craft, denied an additional basic day on contention he was required to perform shop force duties by placing covers on exhaust stacks of a locomotive. Neutral finds employees without sufficient evidence to prove that such work is exclusive to shop force.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1532-Award 57
Neutral: Murray M. Rohman
Parties: UTU vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe-Coast Lines
Award Date: 1978-03-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Conductors denied pay for additional day claimed when required to sign bills of lading covering shipments contained in cars picked up at intermediate points when either no agent was on duty or no agent assigned. Claim denied for lack of rule.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1951-Award 21
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-T vs. Burlington Northern Inc.
Award Date: 1978-03-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Conductor and brakemen were required to perform duties of a carman by making 500-mile terminal air test at point where carmen were employed. Claims sustained in the amount of two (2) hours, forty (40) minutes each, in accord with past settlements on the property, instead of a carman's day.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1814-Award 14
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: UTU vs. Illinois Central Gulf
Award Date: 1978-02-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Various claims of road freight conductors for air hose coupling arbitrary denied. Neutral finds that while carmen were employed at the point in question, employees fail to furnish substantive evidence that the couplings were performed during hours that carmen were on duty which is a requirement of the rule in effect.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1951-Award 17
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-T vs. Burlington Northern
Award Date: 1978-02-24 00:00:00
Synopsis: Neutral finds no violation of rules when road freight conductors are driven by company vehicle from the yard to, the depot to pick up their train orders prior to departing the initial terminal. Findings conclude that practice is for mutual convenience and does expedite the movement of the trains. Various conductor claims for 100 miles each are denied.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 423-Award 199
Neutral: Hubert Wyckoff
Parties: UTU-T vs. Port Terminal
Award Date: 1978-02-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yard foreman and helpers denied eight (8) hours each when required to start their tour of duty on a track other than designated starting point. Neutral interprets rule to distinguish between the point of reporting for duty and point of starting work. Here, claimant's point of reporting was not changed and while walking to the point of starting work, they were already on pay.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 12-Award 148
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: UTU-C vs. Grand Trunk Western
Award Date: 1978-01-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Conductor and brakemen sustained in claim for eight (8) hours at the carman's rate when required to replace a knuckle while switching at an intermediate point yard where carmen were employed.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 12-Award 149
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: UTU-C vs. Grand Trunk Western
Award Date: 1978-01-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Conductor and brakemen sustained in claim for eight (8) hours at the yard rate when, to comply with special instructions of the timetable, they switched and relocated an open top load which the rules provided should not be immediately behind the locomotive. Neutral finds carrier failed to correct the erroneous car placement where yard engines were on duty.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 175-Award 297
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Milwaukee Road - West
Award Date: 1978-01-03 00:00:00
Synopsis: Various claims of trainmen denied for 100 miles at the firemen (helper) rate when they performed mechanical duties formerly and exclusively performed by firemen. Neutral chooses among what he considers as precedent awards in selecting those favoring the carriers and through some tortured logic uses the excuse that the mechanical duties required of trainmen must be considered a "minimal accommodation to a fellow crew member."
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 175-Award 311
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Milwaukee Road - West
Award Date: 1978-01-03 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer sustained in claim for one (1) hour at the pro-rata rate per schedule rule when he performed the work of connecting the electrical jumper cables and air hoses between diesel units relative to adding one (1) unit to the consist.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1048-Award 54
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-S vs. Western Pacific
Award Date: 1978-01-03 00:00:00
Synopsis: Conductor claims conditionally sustained for an additional 100 miles when required to assist the carmen in performing the 500-mile brake test at a terminal. Neutral finds that if claimants were the trainmen who actually helped perform the brake test they should be paid the additional mileage as claimed.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 175-Award 300
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Milwaukee Road - West
Award Date: 1978-01-03 00:00:00
Synopsis: Various claims of trainmen denied for 100 miles at the firemen (helper) rate when they performed mechanical duties formerly and exclusively performed by firemen. Neutral chooses among what he considers as precedent awards in selecting those favoring the carriers and through some tortured logic uses the excuse that the mechanical duties required of trainmen must be considered a "minimal accommodation to a fellow crew member."
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1911-Award 5
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-E vs. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific
Award Date: 1977-12-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer and fireman (helper) denied 100 miles as claimed in lieu of 13 miles allowed by the carrier when required to add lube oil to their locomotive at the initial terminal. Applicable rule provides that claimants perform such duties where no roundhouse force is maintained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1919-Award 6
Neutral: Irving T. Bergman
Parties: UTU-T vs. Burlington Northern (SP&S)
Award Date: 1977-12-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yardman, detached from his regular crew in order to line necessary switches for a Portland Terminal crew to reach the SP&S turntable with a locomotive, allowed the yard-pilot rate for his tour of duty. Said yard-pilot rate the same as yard foreman rate. Neutral refuses to allow an additional day as initially claimed, finding that precedent bars such claim when the rest of his yard crew remained idle while he performed the pilot service.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1922-Award 16
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-S vs. Southern Pacific
Award Date: 1977-12-06 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yardmen performed work for a foreign carrier when they were required to couple to and assist a Santa Fe transfer locomotive which had failed on Southern Pacific trackage. Claimants were required to assist this foreign line crew in completing their interchange movement to the S.P. and three (3) switchmen are sustained for an additional day each.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1459-Award 72
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-E vs. Chicago and North Western
Award Date: 1977-12-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer was required to make up his diesel consist in roundhouse territory and in the process was required to handle diesel units not a part of his consist. Claim sustained for an additional day at inside hostler rate.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1641-Award 27
Neutral: Joseph A. Sickles
Parties: UTU-T vs. Erie-Lackawanna
Award Date: 1977-11-25 00:00:00
Synopsis: Passenger trainmen in commuter service improperly used to uncouple electrical cables between passenger cars at a terminal where electricians or car inspectors were assigned. Claim for an additional day at the electrician's rate sustained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1532-Award 44
Neutral: Murray M. Rohman
Parties: UTU vs. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe - Coast
Award Date: 1977-11-18 00:00:00
Synopsis: Santa Fe pool freight crew performed helper service for a foreign carrier when they were required to push a disabled Union Pacific freight train to the summit of a mountain grade in order to clear the trackage and avoid the U.P. crew from doubling the hill. Neutral finds that claimants would have been required to push the train only to the nearest crossover in order to clear trackage considering the T.C.S. System in use governing both tracks. Claims of an additional 100 miles for the Santa Fe conductor and his brakemen sustained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1634-Award 7
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-T vs. Norfolk & Portsmouth Belt
Award Date: 1977-11-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Conductor who possessed running rights over N&W trackage did not perform additional duties outside his assignment when in movement over such foreign line trackage he lined a switch which was impeding his train. Claim for an additional 8 hours at pro-rata rate lacks rule support and is denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1634-Award 8
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-T vs. Norfolk & Portsmouth Belt
Award Date: 1977-11-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Conductor and crew did not perform switching for a foreign line carrier when they were required to pick up 42 cars on the regularly designated interchange track and place same at various industries. Cars involved were in the possession of the claimant's carrier and the complained of practice has existed for many years. Claims for additional days lack rule support and are denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1863-Award 1
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Union Pacific
Award Date: 1977-11-01 00:00:00
Synopsis: Various claims of conductors denied for an additional 100 miles in each instance they were required to make "wheel reports" of cars handled in their trains. Neutral finds that the compilation of this report is, historically and traditionally, a duty of the conductor required without payment of additional compensation.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 912-Award 417
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Norfolk & Western
Award Date: 1977-10-18 00:00:00
Synopsis: Conductor and brakemen assigned to turnaround road-switcher local sustained in claim for an additional 100 miles each when required to operate outside their assigned territory for the purpose of retailing four (4) cars of another train. Claimants sustained under applicable schedule rule when after operating from initial terminal to turning point and departing said turning point on return leg of their trip they were required to backtrack in movement which took them some two (2) miles outside their assigned territory to perform the work previously described.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1815-Award 91
Neutral: William M. Edgett
Parties: UTU vs. Former Penn-Central
Award Date: 1977-09-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims of yardmen and/or brakemen denied for additional compensation at firemen's rate of pay when required to pass and call signals while riding on the locomotive. Neutral finds that signal passing is a part of the lookout function of claimants and does not constitute performing the duties of a fireman.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 180-Award 1097
Neutral: David R. Douglass
Parties: BLE vs. Southern Pacific (Pacific)
Award Date: 1977-09-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: Various claims of engineers for an additional one (1) hour denied on contention by claimants that they were required to supply their engines with ice and/or drinking water. Neutral finds that claimants performed such additional duties voluntarily and without instructions from proper authority.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 364-Award 193
Neutral: William H. Coburn
Parties: UTU-T vs. Erie-Lackawanna
Award Date: 1977-09-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Continuing claim of train crews in pool and irregular freight service sustained in the amount of an additional 100 miles each on particular dates when claimants were required to switch an industry three (3) miles beyond the crew's away from home terminal as advertised and assigned.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2171
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago and North Western
Award Date: 1977-09-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Brakeman sustained for one (1) hour arbitrary at pro-rata rate instead of one (1) basic day at prevailing yard rate when required to assist the engine crew in operating an air-powered turntable necessary to turning one unit of a diesel consist so that it would be headed, in the right direction for the return trip.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 703-Award 1
Neutral: Leo C. Brown
Parties: UTU-T vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1977-09-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Five (5) claims sustained; nine (9) claims denied for yard foremen claiming forty (40) minutes at pro-rata rate each day required to perform the duties of a footboard yardmaster. Neutral finds that prior to the merger of the former Seaboard Air Line and the Atlantic Coast Line, the Seaboard had a rate of pay and a rule defining the duties of a footboard yardmaster while the A.C.L. merely had a rate of pay. Nonetheless, the Seaboard Air Line rule for said position was adopted for application on the merged property. As a result thereof, the board determines the merits of all of the claims involved on proof that at some time or another during their respective tours of duty the claimants did instruct, direct, advise or tell another yard crew, road crew or employee what to do concerning the performance of their work.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1815-Award 25
Neutral: William M. Edgett
Parties: UTU vs. Conrail Corporation
Award Date: 1977-09-13 00:00:00
Synopsis: Schedule rule was not violated when yard crew was required to bleed a car which was subsequently "humped" some 6 or 7 hours later. Neutral finds no merit to claim, and denies yard foreman and helpers an additional day at yard rates.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1815-Award 30
Neutral: William M. Edgett
Parties: UTU vs. Former Penn-Central
Award Date: 1977-09-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims of yardmen and/or brakemen denied for additional compensation at firemen's rate of pay when required to pass and call signals while riding on the locomotive. Neutral finds that signal passing is a part of the lookout function of claimants and does not constitute performing the duties of a fireman.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1713-Award 5
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Ogden Union Railway & Depot
Award Date: 1977-09-07 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of herder-foreman and penalty claims of certain available extra men for an additional 100 miles each denied. Claims arise from said herder-foreman being required to pass signals to the hostler in retailing an engine. Neutral finds no violation of the rule which states that a herder will accompany locomotives moving without cars outside the roundhouse area in charge of a hostler. In doing so a herder is expected to pass signals.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1713-Award 4
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Ogden Union Railway & Depot
Award Date: 1977-09-07 00:00:00
Synopsis: Various claims of herder-foremen and penalty claims of certain available extra men for an additional 100 miles each sustained. Claims arise from herder-foremen and hostlers being required to finish yarding a certain local whose road crew often has allowable time under hours of service expire within yard limits. In opposite application to Award No. 5, this board, the herder finds himself accompanying a locomotive with cars which violates the schedule rule.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1922-Award 3
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-S vs. Southern Pacific Company
Award Date: 1977-09-06 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims of switchmen sustained for an additional day each when required to move Western Pacific cars from a joint Southern Pacific-Western Pacific "drill" track in order to gain access to tracks needed for industrial switching. Neutral finds that responsibility for the movement was that of the Western Pacific since no emergency existed.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1922-Award 7
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-S vs. Southern Pacific Company
Award Date: 1977-09-06 00:00:00
Synopsis: Switchmen denied claims for an additional day each when required to switch tracks of the Pacific Fruit Express Company. Employees contend that they were required to perform switching on the tracks of a foreign line common carrier, since P.F.E. operates its own locomotives to some extent. Neutral finds that the Pacific Fruit Express Company constitutes a private industry and a Southern Pacific customer based on prior awards of precedent.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1922-Award 12
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-S vs. Southern Pacific Company
Award Date: 1977-09-06 00:00:00
Synopsis: Switchmen sustained for an additional day each when required to rerail a Santa Fe locomotive which derailed at a crossover on joint Southern Pacific - Union Pacific trackage. Neutral rejects carrier argument that an emergency existed and concludes that Santa Fe was in no way blocked from sending a crew and locomotive of their own to perform this work.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1435-Award 81
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Chesapeake & Ohio
Award Date: 1977-08-25 00:00:00
Synopsis: Conductor and brakeman regularly assigned to through freight service sustained for an additional basic day each. Claimants, withheld from their regular manifest freight run, were used to operate a coal train which was properly work to be performed by crews in pool freight service.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 175-Award 293
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Milwaukee Road (Lines West)
Award Date: 1977-08-22 00:00:00
Synopsis: Road freight brakeman denied an additional 100 miles at fireman-helper rate of pay when he was asked by the engineer and did assist in helping start a diesel unit. Neutral finds that "integrity of the Trainmen's Agreement is not dependent upon the imposition of sanctions upon Carrier when a brakeman renders a slight accommodation to his engineer."
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 175-Award 299
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Milwaukee Road (Lines West)
Award Date: 1977-08-22 00:00:00
Synopsis: Road freight brakeman sustained for an additional 100 miles at fireman-helper rate of pay following compliance with instructions given by the engineer that he operate the train while the engineer went back to "trouble shoot" the rear two (2) diesel units. Neutral apparently sustains on conclusion that claimant brakeman "acted as engineer for a considerable period of time." Here, the brakeman operated the train for a distance of 4 miles. Thus, the question remains as to whether the neutral would have sustained the claim had the brakeman operated the train for a shorter period of time or less mileage.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1872-Award 2
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: UTU vs. Chesapeake & Ohio
Award Date: 1977-07-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: Road freight train crew denied an additional 2 hours, 29 minutes as claimed on the contention of assisting another train. Neutral finds that claimants in shoving a disabled car into a siding to allow a wreck train to make repairs was not an assist within the applicable schedule rule.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 195-Award 1002
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: UTU-T vs. Grand Trunk Western
Award Date: 1977-07-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims of various yardmen denied for an additional 8 hours each when required to clear switch point of snow for the movements of their own assignments. Neutral finds no violation of applicable agreement rule in view of the fact that available track forces were being used to maximum effort.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1312-Award 193
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-T vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1977-06-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yard foreman and crew denied an additional 3-hour arbitrary during the same tour of duty when required to rerail a second car derailed through no fault of their own. Record shows that claimants had already been paid the 3-hour arbitrary during this tour of duty for rerailing the first car derailed. Proper application of the rule allows payment of the arbitrary only once during the same shift irrespective of the number of cars they may be required to rerail.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1316-Award 278
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU vs. Southern Pacific Co. (T&L)
Award Date: 1977-06-13 00:00:00
Synopsis: Road freight conductor and brakemen denied an additional 100 miles on contention that they were required to perform the duties of a station agent. Claimants, by message, were required to identify and copy car numbers of all "yellow stripe" empties picked up at a non-agency station. List of car numbers were then delivered with the cars to an agency station; list handed over to the agent there. Neutral denied for lack of rule support.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1316-Award 279
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU vs. Southern Pacific Co. (T&L)
Award Date: 1977-06-13 00:00:00
Synopsis: Local freight conductor and brakemen denied an additional 100 miles when required to check the yard at an intermediate point in order to perform necessary switching and pick-ups. Claim arises from improper instructions as to location of the cars furnished them by chief dispatcher's message. Neutral denies for lack of rule support.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1316-Award 280
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU vs. Southern Pacific Co. (T&L)
Award Date: 1977-06-13 00:00:00
Synopsis: Local freight conductor and brakemen denied an additional 100 miles when required to pick up all the empties on a siding that were "clean and ready to move," advising how many moved. Employees contend that additional duties were performed in inspecting cars to determine whether they were clean. Neutral denies the claim for lack of rule support.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1316-Award 281
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU vs. Southern Pacific Co. (T&L)
Award Date: 1977-06-13 00:00:00
Synopsis: Continuous claim of conductors and brakemen in freight service denied for payment of an additional 100 miles when required to furnish a copy of their switch list to an operator at an intermediate point enroute for advance consist information to the next terminal. Neutral accepts carrier evidence as to past interpretations and precedents in opposing employees' position on this property.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1535-Award 44
Neutral: Murray M. Rohman
Parties: UTU-T vs. Houston Belt & Terminal
Award Date: 1977-05-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Various claims of yard trainmen denied for an additional basic day. Claimants, working regularly assigned yard or transfer assignments in specified areas contend that they were removed from their bulletined locations to perform work of other assignments. Neutral considers the heavy work situation caused by large "Russian Grain" movements on the claim dates; disputes in facts between the parties impossible to resolve; and the deminimus quality of any violations in ruling for the carrier.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1535-Award 45
Neutral: Murray M. Rohman
Parties: UTU-T vs. Houston Belt & Terminal
Award Date: 1977-05-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Various claims of yard trainmen denied for an additional basic day. Claimants, working regularly assigned yard or transfer assignments in specified areas contend that they were removed from their bulletined locations to perform work of other assignments. Neutral considers the heavy work situation caused by large "Russian Grain" movements on the claim dates; disputes in facts between the parties impossible to resolve; and the deminimus quality of any violations in ruling for the carrier.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1630-Award 23
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-T vs. Erie-Lackawanna
Award Date: 1977-05-25 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yardman, assigned as Hostler-Pilot, sustained in claim for an additional basic day at yard conductor's rate. Hostler, operating engine for which claimant served as pilot was required to furnish power in rerailing another derailed locomotive. Claimant was required to transmit hand signals in the retailing movement. Yardmen's crew consist rule was violated.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1299-Award 41
Neutral: Francis X. Quinn
Parties: UTU vs. Penn Central Transportation Company
Award Date: 1977-05-12 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of conductor and crew sustained in the amount of an additional day each when first required to set retainers in compliance with a schedule rule pertaining to mineral trains then make a terminal air test at the initial terminal. Trainmen were relieved from making a terminal test of air brakes by a schedule rule in turn violated by the carrier.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1241-Award 70
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU-T vs. Indiana Harbor Belt
Award Date: 1977-05-06 00:00:00
Synopsis: Operator-Switchtender denied an additional basic day on claim of additional duties when required to furnish "scanner" information to the carrier's general office.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1299-Award 38
Neutral: Francis X. Quinn
Parties: UTU vs. Penn Central Transportation Company
Award Date: 1977-05-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims of trainmen sustained in the amount of an additional day for one (1) trainman on each claim date through discovery, when one of the claimants were required to place a compromise coupler over the regular coupler prior to moving cars. Neutral finds work performed properly that of carmen and not within the scope of trainmen.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1841-Award 4
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Minneapolis, Northfield & Southern
Award Date: 1977-05-04 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer, Conductor and Brakeman sustained in the amount of an additional 100 miles each. Claimants, assigned to a main line switch assignment, were taken by automobile to a point on the main line where they took over an inbound road job and operated same to final terminal under road train orders. Incumbent crew on road job had "died" under the Hours of Service Law and neutral finds that an assigned yard crew was required to perform road service.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1841-Award 5
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Minneapolis, Northfield & Southern
Award Date: 1977-05-04 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer, Conductor and Brakeman sustained in the amount of an additional 100 miles each. Again, claimants assigned to yard job were taken by automobile to a wayside point and required to operate a road job to the final terminal when crew's time had expired under Hours of Service Law as in Award No. 4, this board.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1841-Award 9
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Minneapolis, Northfield & Southern
Award Date: 1977-05-04 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer, assigned to transfer service sustained in the amount of an additional 100 miles when required to operate road train and thus perform road service when assigned crew had no additional time to work under the Hours of Service Law.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1841-Award 13
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Minneapolis, Northfield & Southern
Award Date: 1977-05-04 00:00:00
Synopsis: Brakeman sustained in the amount of 100 additional miles when assigned to switching service and required, as a crew member, to man road train and perform road service when assigned crew had no additional time to work under Hours of Service Law. See previous Awards 4, 5 and 9 of this Board.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1777-Award 7
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern Inc.
Award Date: 1977-04-12 00:00:00
Synopsis: Conductor and Brakeman sustained for an additional day each at local rate. Due to a washout on the Union Pacific, this B.N. crew was required to make a pick up at an industry located at an intermediate point. The pickup was made on U.P. trackage and claim was sustained when required to operate on foreign line trackage.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1299-Award 18
Neutral: Francis X. Quinn
Parties: UTU vs. Penn Central Transportation Company
Award Date: 1977-03-31 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of "swing" brakeman sustained for an additional yard day as paid other members of the road freight pool crew to which he was assigned. Claimant and other members of the train crew were required to dispose of their caboose on the caboose track at final terminal. The Conductor and other Brakemen were allowed the additional day under provisions of the Pooling of Cabooses Agreement; the claimant was denied by the carrier. Neutral finds that claimant was entitled to the same contractual benefits and limitations as other members of the crew.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1299-Award 19
Neutral: Francis X. Quinn
Parties: UTU vs. Penn Central Transportation Company
Award Date: 1977-03-31 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of conductor and crew sustained for minimum days when required to pick up and set out on foreign seniority districts when operating in straightaway interseniority district through freight service. Neutral determines that schedule rule was violated in requiring claimants to pick up or set out on seniority districts other than their own, constituting intraseniority district service rather than interseniority district service to which assigned.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1299-Award 22
Neutral: Francis X. Quinn
Parties: UTU vs. Penn Central Transportation Company
Award Date: 1977-03-31 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of conductor and brakemen sustained for a minimum day each when required to pickup on foreign seniority district in the performance of straightaway interseniority district through freight service. Circumstances resulting in sustaining award identical to interpretation set forth in Award No. 19, this board.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1299-Award 25
Neutral: Francis X. Quinn
Parties: UTU vs. Penn Central Transportation Company
Award Date: 1977-03-31 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of conductor and brakemen denied for an additional day each on contention that they were required to perform interseniority district service. Claimants were assigned to intraseniority district service and in the course of such duties were required to perform intraseniority district helper service. For such additional service they were paid for the trip at the highest rate of any service performed. Crew properly compensated by the carrier.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 912-Award 370
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Norfolk & Western
Award Date: 1977-03-01 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claims of various yardmen for an additional day's pay for being required to clean switches of ice and snow on a contention this was work belonging to another craft and is outside the scope of a yardman's duties. The Neutral held that so long as the Carrier makes a reasonable effort to have this work performed by M of W employees, the carrier can then require yardmen to perform the work on switches used by them.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1803-Award 1
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU vs. Central California Traction Co.
Award Date: 1977-02-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of road switcher train crew for an additional 100 miles on a contention that they were required to perform service on a foreign railroad. Claimant in connection with making an interchange delivery of eight cars to the Santa Fe at Stockton handled another car to be turned on the Santa Fe wye and returned car to Fruitridge. The car was being turned on the wye in order that it could be properly placed by the California Traction Company to an industry, as requested by the industry.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1620-Award 30
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Fort Worth & Denver
Award Date: 1977-02-11 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of a road conductor and denies claim to his brakemen for an additional 100 miles when required to make switch list of cars at an intermediate point. The Neutral held that the Conductor was required to do work outside his assignment when required to render a report of cars at this station not handled or to be handled by his crew. That the two brakemen performed no extra service outside their assignment and their claims accordingly were without merit.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1620-Award 43
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Fort Worth & Denver
Award Date: 1977-02-11 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustain numerous similar claims as analogous to the claim decided by Award No. 30.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1620-Award 61
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Fort Worth & Denver
Award Date: 1977-02-11 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustain numerous similar claims as analogous to the claim decided by Award No. 30.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2133
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago & North Western
Award Date: 1977-02-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of a Yard Foreman for an additional day's pay when required to transport company mail from one yard to another yard. This material had previously been delivered by a clerk. The Board held that the material delivered was not related to claimant's work or incidental to his regular duties and under the circumstances the claim for an additional day's pay was justified.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1775-Award 14
Neutral: Robert O. Boyd
Parties: UTU-T vs. Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac
Award Date: 1977-01-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of a yard crew for an additional allowance when a "Brakeman Trainee" was assigned to work with claimants. The claim was based on a contention of being assigned to other than regular duties. The Neutral held that there was no contractual provision for the payment of additional compensation.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 180-Award 1072
Neutral: David R. Douglass
Parties: BLE vs. Southern Pacific
Award Date: 1976-12-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer denied one (1) hour for supplying diesel unit with drinking water. Facts indicate that after claimant was notified that there was no drinking water on the locomotive he supplied same without instructions from the carrier.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1324-Award 71
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Chesapeake & Ohio
Award Date: 1976-12-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Conductor in freight service sustained for an additional 100 miles as claimed when required to handle company mail. Board determines that when claimant was required to deliver a bundle of waybills which had no relation to his train he was required to handle company mail, such duties being outside the scope of what may be normally required.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1435-Award 30
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Chesapeake & Ohio
Award Date: 1976-12-13 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims of conductor and two (2) brakemen submitted for an additional day when required to supply the caboose of a work extra for which they were called. Neutral rules that it is doubtful that it would take the whole train crew to obtain the supplies. Claim of rear brakeman sustained. Claim of conductor and head brakeman denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1435-Award 33
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Chesapeake & Ohio
Award Date: 1976-12-13 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of road freight conductor sustained when required to check yard and list information in agent's demurrage record book at intermediate point. Neutral finds that contract was violated when conductor was required to check and list cars which had not been and were not to be handled by claimant's crew. Additional day at footboard yardmaster's rate allowed.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1435-Award 35
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Chesapeake & Ohio
Award Date: 1976-12-13 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims in behalf of a yard brakeman sustained under schedule rule when only two (2) brakemen were assigned to a yard crew and in each case one (1) of said brakemen was required in either placing engine on outgoing road train, removing engine from incoming yard train or assist in doubling over. In proper application of the schedule rule, it is permissible to use a yard brakeman for the aforementioned duties when three (3) brakemen are assigned to a crew. It constitutes a contract violation to so use a yard brakeman when only two (2) are assigned to a yard crew.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1435-Award 36
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Chesapeake & Ohio
Award Date: 1976-12-13 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims in behalf of a yard brakeman sustained under schedule rule when only two (2) brakemen were assigned to a yard crew and in each case one (1) of said brakemen was required in either placing engine on outgoing road train, removing engine from incoming yard train or assist in doubling over. In proper application of the schedule rule, it is permissible to use a yard brakeman for the aforementioned duties when three (3) brakemen are assigned to a crew. It constitutes a contract violation to so use a yard brakeman when only two (2) are assigned to a yard crew.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1435-Award 37
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Chesapeake & Ohio
Award Date: 1976-12-13 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims in behalf of a yard brakeman sustained under schedule rule when only two (2) brakemen were assigned to a yard crew and in each case one (1) of said brakemen was required in either placing engine on outgoing road train, removing engine from incoming yard train or assist in doubling over. In proper application of the schedule rule, it is permissible to use a yard brakeman for the aforementioned duties when three (3) brakemen are assigned to a crew. It constitutes a contract violation to so use a yard brakeman when only two (2) are assigned to a yard crew.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1435-Award 38
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Chesapeake & Ohio
Award Date: 1976-12-13 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims in behalf of a yard brakeman sustained under schedule rule when only two (2) brakemen were assigned to a yard crew and in each case one (1) of said brakemen was required in either placing engine on outgoing road train, removing engine from incoming yard train or assist in doubling over. In proper application of the schedule rule, it is permissible to use a yard brakeman for the aforementioned duties when three (3) brakemen are assigned to a crew. It constitutes a contract violation to so use a yard brakeman when only two (2) are assigned to a yard crew.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1435-Award 39
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Chesapeake & Ohio
Award Date: 1976-12-13 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims in behalf of a yard brakeman sustained under schedule rule when only two (2) brakemen were assigned to a yard crew and in each case one (1) of said brakemen was required in either placing engine on outgoing road train, removing engine from incoming yard train or assist in doubling over. In proper application of the schedule rule, it is permissible to use a yard brakeman for the aforementioned duties when three (3) brakemen are assigned to a crew. It constitutes a contract violation to so use a yard brakeman when only two (2) are assigned to a yard crew.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1435-Award 40
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Chesapeake & Ohio
Award Date: 1976-12-13 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims in behalf of a yard brakeman sustained under schedule rule when only two (2) brakemen were assigned to a yard crew and in each case one (1) of said brakemen was required in either placing engine on outgoing road train, removing engine from incoming yard train or assist in doubling over. In proper application of the schedule rule, it is permissible to use a yard brakeman for the aforementioned duties when three (3) brakemen are assigned to a crew. It constitutes a contract violation to so use a yard brakeman when only two (2) are assigned to a yard crew.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1543-Award 13
Neutral: Robert M. O'Brien
Parties: BLE vs. Penn-Central
Award Date: 1976-11-29 00:00:00
Synopsis: Various claims of engineers sustained for an additional one (1) hour each when required to change hoses on diesel units from one end to the other at an intermediate point necessary to move deadhead passenger equipment.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 912-Award 311
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Norfolk & Western
Award Date: 1976-11-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Conductor claims eight (8) hours at yard clerk rate on contention that he was required to check cars in each yard track and make list. Companion claims of brakemen denied. Neutral finds that if, in fact, the car check and list were made within terminal limits the conductor's claim will be sustained. If the tracks involved were outside the terminal limits the claim will be denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1305-Award 93
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU-E vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1976-09-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of an engine crew for an additional day's pay when required to turn engine consist on wye at initial terminal when there was a hostler on duty who could, by using yard tracks, have turned the engine.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1135-Award 41
Neutral: Gene T. Ritter
Parties: UTU vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe
Award Date: 1976-08-16 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of a train crew for an additional 100 miles when required to replace hangerpin and repair brake rigging on a car picked up enroute. The Organization's contention that the work belonged to another craft was sustained by the Board in its findings on a holding that regardless of how trivial the act may be, the contract must be preserved.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1312-Award 147
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1976-07-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denied claims of yardmen for an additional day's pay when required to "handle brow plates" on cars being spotted by them at an automobile unloading facility. The cars spotted were bi-level and tri-level cars equipped with brow plates between the cars to permit removal of the automobiles therefrom. The Board held that in this particular case, the handling of the brow plates by claimants was incidental to their switching and spotting these particular cars.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1641-Award 3
Neutral: Joseph A. Sickles
Parties: UTU-T vs. Erie Lackawanna
Award Date: 1976-07-01 00:00:00
Synopsis: Various conductors and trainmen sustained for additional preparatory time in passenger service where carrier attempted to limit agreed to allowance through management's own self-imposed interpretation of the applicable rule, found to be in violation thereof.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1342-Award 6
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe
Award Date: 1976-06-22 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims of various brakemen sustained for an additional 100-mile basic day when required to perform work outside the scope of their regular duties in supplying cabooses.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1457-Award 1
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: UTU-C vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1976-06-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of conductor and accompanying brakemen denied in the amount of one (1) additional day when required to assist a derailed train ahead on single track by proceeding ahead and then pulling rear end of derailed train back in order to place same in siding.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1457-Award 2
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: UTU-C vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1976-06-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of conductor and crew sustained for an additional basic day when required to switch a derailed train ahead by pulling back with a portion of train in order to place in siding and then switch wreck train in order to properly position crane and tool cars. Board finds that switching of derailed train would not give rise to valid claim and more than one class of road service compensation cannot be considered since it was not relied on by carrier in handling on the property. Instant claim sustained wholly on switching of the wreck train since board determines that wreck train engine was at all times positioned in order to properly switch its own train.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1457-Award 5
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: UTU-C vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1976-06-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of conductor and crew sustained for an additional basic day, when claimants assigned to a local were required to switch another road freight train enroute. Board accepts employees' version of the facts and rejects carrier contention that local crew performed switching on the other train on their own volition and without authority. Board determines that the setting out of cars from a train is the responsibility of the crew manning said train unless the engine was disabled or otherwise unavailable to perform the work, which in this case it was not.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1516-Award 19
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Union Pacific
Award Date: 1976-05-01 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims of various extra conductors and trainmen for additional mileage denied when required to perform work train service over interdivisional territory contending that they were used off their assigned seniority district. The argument centers on which extra board if any has exclusive rights or is exclusively required to perform extra work train service on this particular interdivisional trackage. Board finds that where work train service does not operate terminal to terminal and because the service originated at the point where the extra list was maintained on their own seniority district claimants were properly called.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 717-Award 259
Neutral: John B. Criswell
Parties: UTU-T vs. St. Louis-San Francisco
Award Date: 1976-04-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims of conductor and crew dismissed despite proven facts that while performing service on a weed sprayer train they were required to operate outside their seniority district. While referee finds that no emergency existed and carrier violated agreement by operating claimants off their assigned territory, proper claimants can only be employees of the seniority district on which conductor and crew were improperly used.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 787-Award 39
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Chicago & Eastern Illinois
Award Date: 1976-04-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of yard crew for an additional basic day denied when employees contended that they were being required to perform other than regular duties in conjunction with operation of a computerized perpetual inventory classification system. Board finds claimant crew is not performing duties now that they have not historically performed in the past, namely checking and marking cars.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 787-Award 37
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Chicago & Eastern Illinois
Award Date: 1976-04-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of Chicago Terminal Switchman for an additional day denied on contention that paperwork he was required to perform in recording the time his crew spent in switching in specific individual railroad zones of the terminal was clerical and outside the scope of his assigned duties. Board denies on basis of precedent rendered in First Division Award No. 15089, that claimant performing the work of yard foreman was merely keeping a time record of his crew which was in no way supervisory.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1406-Award 4
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-T vs. Norfolk & Portsmouth Belt
Award Date: 1976-02-07 00:00:00
Synopsis: Conductor denied claim for an additional day's pay when required to clean switches necessary to the movement of his own train per orders of yardmaster. Board denies on basis of an emergency brought about by an unprecedented snow storm which required the services of every available section and shop laborer which would not have been sufficient to keep the railroad in operation had not train crews been required to clean switches incidental to operation of their own trains.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1500-Award 3
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: UTU vs. Illinois Central Gulf
Award Date: 1976-01-31 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims of various yard foremen denied for penalty days on contention that being required to keep records on movements of cars in the yard in conjunction with the same type of PICL System which was the subject of Award 39, PLB 787, herein, was outside the scope of their assigned duties. Board finds that such work was incidental to the duties of a yard foreman, and no negotiated rule provided for additional compensation for disputed work performed.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1552-Award 1
Neutral: Robert G. Williams
Parties: UTU-T vs. Norfolk & Western
Award Date: 1975-08-18 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claims of various yard conductors because of having been required to mark switch list according to the track cars were switched into, in the order they were switched and then return switch list to Yardmaster. The Neutral held that this was record keeping incidental to the yard conductor's position.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1305-Award 41
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU-E vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1975-05-12 00:00:00
Synopsis: Under Article V (1) of the BLE National Agreement of May 13, 1971, the board determines that a road freight engine crew may be required to exchange engine and caboose of its own train at an intermediate point. Does not rule on contention that engine exchange is complete consist or may be a single unit.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1128-Award 15
Neutral: William M. Edgett
Parties: UTU-E vs. Penn-Central
Award Date: 1975-02-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims of engineer and fireman (helper) sustained when required to prepare dead engines for tow in violation of engine service schedule agreements. Board determines that since the dead engines were not a part of the claimants' diesel consist they fall in the category of "box cars". Therefore, carrier cannot require engine crews to perform the contested duties.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1305-Award 10
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU-E vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1974-11-18 00:00:00
Synopsis: Fireman (helper) in interdivisional freight service denied an additional basic day on contention that in setting out cars on a particular siding at an intermediate point he was operated off his assigned territory. Board determines that siding in question was within the station limits of the intermediate point on line of track over which claimant was bulletined to operate. Furthermore, uncontested past practice and precedent awards directly in point favor the carrier, thus making the instant claim invalid.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1305-Award 13
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU-E vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1974-11-18 00:00:00
Synopsis: Fireman (helper) sustained in the amount of an additional basic day when during tour of duty in helper service he was required to operate outside the geographical limits of his helper assignment.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1028-Award 1
Neutral: David R. Douglass
Parties: UTU vs. Western Maryland
Award Date: 1974-09-12 00:00:00
Synopsis: Neutral rules that adding or subtracting one or more units to consist as well as exchanging "entire consist" all comes within purview of Article IX, Section 1 of the January 27, 1972 Agreement.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 94-Award 149
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk & Western (Former N.K.P.)
Award Date: 1973-11-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims of yard ground crew sustained for an additional 8 hours each when required to enter Chicago Belt Line trackage and assist a Chicago, Burlington & Quincy train into Calumet Yard account of engine failure. Neutral finds that claimants were required to perform service on foreign line trackage which should have been performed by another carrier.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 714-Award 9
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: UTU vs. Upper Merion and Plymouth
Award Date: 1973-09-13 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer, Conductor and Brakemen sustained in claims for an additional day each at their prevailing rates when required to perform service outside of regular duties. Claimants were required to operate an industrial locomotive on industrial trackage within a steel plant in order to re-rail industrial equipment. Claim sustained on basis of manning the industrial locomotive.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 180-Award 968
Neutral: David R. Douglass
Parties: BLE vs. Southern Pacific
Award Date: 1973-08-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of an engineer in pool freight service for 100 miles who, at an intermediate point, was required to pick up a car on trackage beyond the limits of claimant's assigned seniority district.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 845-Award 8
Neutral: David Dolnick
Parties: UTU vs. Illinois Central Railroad
Award Date: 1972-09-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims of various yardmen denied on contention that they were required to perform clerical duties outside necessary service on their regular assignments. Claims involve the keeping of data on yard movements in accord with punch cards furnished for operation of a perpetual car location inventory system. Neutral denies on findings that the information claimants were required to furnish via telephone or in filling out punch cards was no greater than what was previously required in the handling of the old type switch lists.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 845-Award 9
Neutral: David Dolnick
Parties: UTU vs. Illinois Central Railroad
Award Date: 1972-09-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims of various yardmen denied on contention that they were required to perform clerical duties outside necessary service on their regular assignments. Claims involve the keeping of data on yard movements in accord with punch cards furnished for operation of a perpetual car location inventory system. Neutral denies on findings that the information claimants were required to furnish via telephone or in filling out punch cards was no greater than what was previously required in the handling of the old type switch lists.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 457-Award 15
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU-T vs. Louisville & Nashville
Award Date: 1972-02-24 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claims of various trainmen on Henderson Division, Louisville and Nashville, for an additional 100 miles each, where used off their assigned district to perform service as third brakemen in order to satisfy requirements of the Indiana Full Crew Law.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 591-Award 162
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa FE-CL
Award Date: 1972-01-03 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of yardmen for basic day's pay at time and one-half rate, when required by the carrier to perform their assigned duties as yardman and in addition work as switchtenders on the same tour of duty.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 570-Award 1
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU-T vs. Gulf Mobile & Ohio
Award Date: 1971-09-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of yardman for additional day's pay when required to perform duties of another craft in assisting engineer to restart motor on diesel locomotive.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 525-Award 34
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Denver & Rio Grande Western
Award Date: 1971-09-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of road-freight brakeman for "make whole" compensation between earnings as an extra conductor and compensation of his regular turn as brakeman, when used off assignments as extra conductor resulting in his having insufficient time under Hours of Service Law to work his regular job.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 18-Award 4694
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Southern Pacific-PL
Award Date: 1971-06-29 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of road-freight train crew for penalty day of one-hundred (100) miles, when head brakeman of stalled road-freight uncoupled locomotive and accompanied same to a point within terminal yard limits where helper locomotive was added to consist; the locomotives and brakeman then returning to the train which was subsequently operated into the terminal.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1743-Award 1
Neutral: David P. Twomey
Parties: UTU-E vs. Central Vermont
Award Date: 1970-11-01 00:00:00
Synopsis: Carrier violated the applicable agreement when passenger engineer and fireman (helper) were required to assemble their train in the coach yard of the initial terminal when such work was properly within the jurisdiction of yard crews of a foreign carrier. Neutral finds no merit to carrier position that yard crews who normally performed this work were on a "wildcat" strike. Claims of engineer and fireman (helper) sustained.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 18-Award 4605
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU-T vs. Southern Pacific-PL
Award Date: 1970-09-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of Conductor for an additional day's pay account required to handle waybill for his train which was outside the scope of his normal duties. Claim sustained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 413-Award 7
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: BLE vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe - CL
Award Date: 1970-07-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a fireman (helper) for the difference in earnings between compensation allowed for duty as an emergency engineer and earnings of his regular passenger assignment, affirming the employee's contention that schedule rules do not require him to remain available for additional assignments as an emergency engineer following completion of his first tour of duty in emergency status, unless specifically notified by the carrier. Award No. 7 is directly in point with, and supported by Awards 21054, 21055, 21056 and 21057 between BLF&E and Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Sainte Marie Railroad Firemen's Supplemental Board, First Division, National Railroad Adjustment Board.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 483-Award 2
Neutral: Howard A. Johnson
Parties: UTU-E vs. Duluth Missabe & Iron Range
Award Date: 1970-06-29 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of engine crew for arbitrary allowance of one hour for making engine change upon basis of schedule rule. Claim sustained. We direct attention to last paragraph which is of particular significance because referee confirms the fact that the contract must be interpreted as written.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 589-Award 133
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: UTU-T vs. Penn Central
Award Date: 1970-03-31 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of yard brakeman for 1 day's pay each date required to service caboose for roadmen. Sustained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 12-Award 34
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: UTU-C vs. Grand Trunk Western
Award Date: 1969-12-04 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim for additional compensation when a turnaround way freight crew was used off their assignment. Carrier made payment for service rendered on their assignment plus 100 miles for service beyond turning point. Committee contended claimants entitled to 100 miles for extra service, plus overtime for all time after eight hours on duty. Claim sustained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 88-Award 14
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU vs. Delaware & Hudson
Award Date: 1968-07-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Interpretation - Award No. 14. Following rendition of awards sustaining claims for an additional day's pay carrier contended that they were entitled to deduct amounts allowed for time consumed for additional service involved. Committee contended carrier must pay claims as presented and could not raise a new issue. Committee's position sustained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 88-Award 15
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU vs. Delaware & Hudson
Award Date: 1968-07-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Interpretation - Award No. 15. Following rendition of awards sustaining claims for an additional day's pay carrier contended that they were entitled to deduct amounts allowed for time consumed for additional service involved. Committee contended carrier must pay claims as presented and could not raise a new issue. Committee's position sustained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 88-Award 16
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU vs. Delaware & Hudson
Award Date: 1968-07-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Interpretation - Award No. 16. Following rendition of awards sustaining claims for an additional day's pay carrier contended that they were entitled to deduct amounts allowed for time consumed for additional service involved. Committee contended carrier must pay claims as presented and could not raise a new issue. Committee's position sustained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1906-Award 237
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis
Award Date:
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a yard crew for an additional day's pay when used in service other than to which assigned. Claimants, regularly assigned to a pool job, were, on the date of claim, transported to another yard by taxicab and instructed to assist another yard crew in switching cars for the General Motors Plant and consequently performed no pool service on this date. The Board finds that the Organization's position that such handling constitutes a violation of Agreement rules is correct. (undated award)
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2143-Award 94
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU-E vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date:
Synopsis: Denies the claim of an engineer for an additional 100 miles based on a contention that Claimant was run out of his assignment when required to perform a lap-back in making a pick-up at an intermediate point. In denying the claim, the Board finds there is no inherent reason why the reverse movement of a road train should ipso facto entitle its crew to a penalty day and that Claimant was paid for the extra distance traversed in the handling so as not to block the main line while making the pickup and taking lunch at the intermediate point. Organization Member's Dissent is attached. (undated award)
View Award
Public Law Board No. 959-Award 90
Neutral: John B. Criswell
Parties: UTU vs. Southern Railway Company
Award Date:
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor for an additional 100 miles, less the difference paid for helper rate and forty (40) minutes' pro rata time and/or any additional mileage allowed, when required to make a trip out of the final terminal. Upon nearing the final terminal of their assignment, it became necessary for the head end crewmen to cut off their engines and shove another train, which had stalled on an ascending grade entering the yard, into the terminal limits. Thereafter, the crewmen returned to their train and completed their assignment. In sustaining this claim, the Board finds that the awards relied upon by the Carrier differ in that, in those cases the Claimants were performing service in connection with their own train. Further, the Board notes numerous settlements at various levels of handling on the property which allowed similar claims. (undated award)
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1906-Award 281
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Terminal RR Association of St. Louis
Award Date:
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Foreman and Helpers for one day's pay when required to work off their regular assignment. At the same time Claimants were performing work off their assignments, another crew was performing their regular work. The Board finds that both crews are industry crews and may be required to perform industry work in another area, but not when another crew is performing industry work on their regular assignment. (undated award)
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1906-Award 282
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Terminal RR Association of St. Louis
Award Date:
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Foreman and Helpers for one day's pay based upon the findings contained in Award No. 281 of this Board. (undated award)
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2487-Award 45
Neutral: Irving T. Bergman
Parties: UTU-E vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe - E&W
Award Date:
Synopsis: Denies claim of Engineer for 100 miles when required to handle a train not in connection with his own assignment. Claimant was brought on duty and transported a distance of three (3) miles where he took charge of a train tied up under the Hours of Service Law and handled it back to his home terminal. He thereafter took charge of his own train and operated his assignment. Organization contends that Claimant was required to operate into and out of his home terminal in violation of the rules and, further, Claimant was required to perform both road service and yard service. Carrier relies entirely on the More Than One Class of Service Rule and contends that Claimant was properly compensated for the service rendered. The Board concurs with the contention of the Carrier. (award dated 1982)
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1048-Award 88
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU vs. Western Pacific RR Co.
Award Date:
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor and crew for 100 miles at local freight rates when required to pick up cars at an intermediate point enroute from other than a designated interchange track. Carrier contends that the claim is invalid because in the handling of this case on the property, Organization amended the original claim by adding an additional rule violation. The Board finds that the agreement was violated by the Carrier and claimant crew could not be required to perform the work at the location here involved. (undated)
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3414-Award 12
Neutral: Alfred G. Albert
Parties: UTU-T vs. Union Pacific
Award Date:
Synopsis: Denies claim of Brakemen for 100 miles each when required to rerail their locomotive unit. At an intermediate point of their assignment, Claimants left their train on the main line and attempted to pick up cars from a siding. However, in the course of this movement, the trailing unit derailed. Organization contends that when Claimants were required to place frogs for the retailing of the locomotive, they were performing carmen's duties and work which could not properly be required of brakemen. The Board holds that the rule relied upon by the Organization does not specifically prohibit the work performed by Claimants, particularly under the emergency circumstances present in the instant case. (undated award)
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2500-Award 39
Neutral: Theodore H. O'Brien
Parties: UTU-E vs. Maine Central
Award Date:
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Hostler and Hostler Helper for one day's pay when required to disconnect a unit from the locomotive consist. Organization contends that this work belongs to machinists and/or electricians. Carrier counters that the work is not exclusively that of machinists or electricians, rather it may also be performed by Claimants. The Board holds that the established past practice weighs in favor of Claimants. (undated award)
View Award