PUBLIC LAW BOARD No. 3779
Case No. 7
AWARD No. 6
CARRIER FILE: a) 0DB-4193, b) ODB-4229
ORGANZN FILE: a) 1348-R-13,718, b) 1348-R-13,753
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION – C & T
vs.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, NWD
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS:
a) Claim of Conductor J. H. Mitchell for 100 miles each day, December 31, 1979, January 2, 3, 4, 1980 account American Crane working on main line between Argo and Kent without conductor-pilot.
b) Claim of Conductor R. G. Allen for 131 miles per day for period January 2 through April 29, 1980 account American Crane working on main line without a conductor-pilot between Andover and Auburn.
FINDINGS:
Upon the whole record and all the evidence, after hearing, the Board finds that the parties herein are carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board is duly constituted by Agreement under Public Law 89-456 and has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter.
On the dates of claims, a self-propelled crane operated on the main line in CTC territory without a conductor-pilot. The Organization contends that Agreement Rule 45(a)(1) required the use of a conductor-pilot under the circumstances; Carrier contends that a conductor-pilot was not required under the rule.
Rule 45(a)(1) provides:
“A conductor will be employed on on-rail self-propelled vehicles or machines when operating in main line territory, provided such machines are equipped with a drawbar and are operating under train orders.”
It is clear from the language of the rule and numerous Board awards interpreting that language, that in order for a conductor to be required on the crane in question, all three of the conditions specified in the rule must be met: (1) the crane must operate in main line territory; (2) it must be equipped with a drawbar; (3) it must operate under train orders. The dispute is over the third condition.
The Organization relies on its interpretation of Carrier’s Operating Rules, which, according to the Organization, required the issuance of train orders to the crane on the dates of claim.
Carrier, on the other hand, submits evidence that in fact no train orders were issued to the crane on the dates in question, and that it is not customary to issue train orders to self-propelled equipment operating in CTC territory as was the case here.
The evidence does not support a finding that the equipment in question was operating under train orders on the dates of claim. The claims will therefore be denied.
AWARD: Claim denied.
H. Raymond Cluster, Chairman
G. R. Maloney, Organization Member
J. E. Cook, Carrier Member
