VS )     NMB CASE NO. 126
                                                      )     AWARD NO. 126


Claim of Council Bluffs Extra Switchmen J. J. Niemiec and D. C. Rangel for a basic day account a road crew picked up a train within the switching limits on April 14, 1995.


The Carrier and the Employees involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended. This Board has jurisdiction of the dispute here involved.

The claimants involved in this claim were on the yardman's extra board at Council Bluffs, Iowa, and are claiming a basic day's pay account allegedly being denied the right to pick up Train NLCB-14 at 2330 hours within the Council Bluffs terminal switching limits when a road crew was utilized to pick up this train and yard it at a different location within the same switching limits.

The facts in this case reveal that a road crew was called at Council Bluffs/Omaha, Nebraska, terminal with an on-duty time of 7:10 PM, to perform multiple hours of service relief /dogcatching. During their assignment this road crew dogcaught three trains during their tour of duty; the first at 7:40 PM when they departed the Council Bluffs/Omaha switching limits to pick up Train 2CECSN which they delivered to the CNW RR at Council Bluffs. At 11:30 PM this crew was instructed to retrieve their second train, the NLCB-14, located within the switching limits and yard it at Council Bluffs. Then at 4:15 AM this crew retrieved their final train, CRMWR15, from outside the Council Bluffs/Omaha switching limits and delivered this train to the CNW at Council Bluffs.

The claimants here are contending that the second movement performed by the road crew; i.e., retrieving the NLCB-14 within the switching limits and yarding it at Council Bluffs was work which a yard crew should have performed in accordance with the terms of the existing yard contract. There is no contention made that it was improper for Carrier to call the road crew to perform multiple hours of service relief/dogcatching service.

The Organization has argued before this Board that a line of demarcation exists between yard service and road service and such line may not be crossed or eliminated except by mutual agreement and has referred to several existing rules in the governing agreement which it contends fully support its position.

On the other hand, Carrier has argued that the work performed by the road crew was permissible work under the provisions of the existing agreement. Carrier has likewise referred this Board to a prior on-property award, No. 4 of PLB 3802, which it contends has already resolved this issue. The factual situation before PLB 3802 in Award No. 4 was:

"Upon arriving at the Omaha/Council Bluffs Terminal claimant, pursuant to instructions, set out the mail car at 6th Street, backed up to 20th Street and picked up Extra 717 East where crew had expired under the Hours of Service Law. Claimant then proceeded to Council Bluffs where he tied up. At the time there were yard crews on duty at Omaha/Council Bluffs."

(NOTE: The claimant in the case before PLB 3802 claimed an additional 100 miles account dogcatching in Omaha.)

In its Award No. 4, PLB 3802 held:

"It must be borne in mind that claimant was in road service and had not yet reached his destination within the final terminal. By bringing Extra 717 East from Omaha into Council Bluffs, claimant simply completed the work of the road crew which had expired under the Hours of Service Law."

It is the opinion of this Board that the holding in Award No. 4, PLB 3802, is equally applicable to the instant dispute; that is, the road crew here involved was specifically called to perform hours of service relief/dogcatching service and in the performance of such service they dogcaught Train NLCB-14 (assigned to a road crew which died under the Hours of Service Law) and delivered such train to its final destination at Council Bluffs. Train NLCB-14 was a road assignment, was delivered to Omaha by a road crew, then relieved by a road crew for final delivery. To paraphrase the language of Award No. 4, PLB 3802, the road crew here involved simply completed the work of the road crew which had expired under the Hours of Service Law.

Based on the record in its entirety the Board must find there is no merit to the claim submitted by claimants that they should have been called to dogcatch the NLCB-14.


Claim denied.


F. T. Lynch, Neutral Chairman

C. R. Wise, Carrier Member

A. Martin, Employee Member

Award date 7/6/99