PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 164
Parties Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen
to Dispute Union Pacific Railroad Company-Eastern District
Statement of Claim: Claim of extra Conductor R. I. Buen, Denver, for 137 miles deadhead Denver to Sterling, Nay 23, 1966; 136 miles deadhead Sterling to Denver, May 24, 1966 and 100 miles at work train rate of pay for May 23, 1966.
Findings: This case involves, among several things, the contemplation and the application to the within facts of Article III, Section 1(a), of the National Work Rules Agreement of June 25, 1964. Said 1(a) sets forth the conditions under which Carrier must assign a conductor to an on-track self-propelled vehicle like the burro crane here used. A main condition here involved is the one that says such a machine must be “operating under train orders Said language raises two questions: (1) What does the quoted phrase mean?(?) Given this interpretative meaning, was the burro crane so operating on claim date, when carrier failed to assign a conductor to it?
As to (1), the Board finds that said phrase contemplated that the self-propelled on-track vehicle must be operating under a train order specifically addressed to its “boss” and directly governing its own movements and work. It is not enough that other vehicles or trains which are affected by the first’s presence and actions are operating under train orders addressed to them and governing their movements.
As to (2) above, the record contains no evidence that the crane on claim date had had and was working under a train order addressed to it. It appears that the only train order governing movements in the area on said date was the one addressed to other trains therein – the one taking the main track between Sterling and Union out of service from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. This order may not rightly be said to have been addressed to or to have governed the movements of the crane on claim date.
The Organization contends that the crane must have had a train order so as to get out of Sterling to its service location. The Board can find no evidence, however, that the crane was in Sterling the night before claim date.
Given the answers to both of the above questions, Carrier may not be held to have violated the 1964 Agreement.
Another approach to the Agreement and to the facts herein is that used by S.B.A. No. 333 in its Awards Nos. 120 and 123 covering another District of this Carrier and the B. of R. T.., where the main track was also taken out of service (in those cases by placing C. T. C. signals in stop position). That Board found that under such condition the crane was not being operated on a main line track; and, since under the Agreement such operation is another condition that must be met to warrant assignment of a conductor, those claims were thereby invalid.
Given the finding that the 1964 Agreement was not violated here, the other issues raised by Carrier in its submission need no consideration.
AWARD: Claim denied.
Carroll R. Daugherty, Chairman and Neutral Member
Mr. Kenny, Carrier Member
J. H. Shepherd, Employe Member
(I dissent)
Omaha, Nebraska
July 26, l967
