SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 894
BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS
"Organization"
Case No. 1437
v.
Award No. 1437
·
·
CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION
"Carrier"
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
System Docket CR-E-12440 Albany Division Case No. 70-903-235 claims of Engineer A. M. Johnston for payment of
an additional eight (8) service miles at Worcester, MA
while working Train SEPW on February 10, 13, 22; 25, 28
and March 3, 6 and 9, 1989 in accordance with Articles
F-c-2 and F-s-4.
OPINION OF THE BOARD
On all eight
(8)
of the involved claim dates Claimant was
working through freight service on train SEPW from Selkirk, New
York to Framington, Massachusetts.
Claimant was
required to stop his train at Worcester I
intermediate terminal,
CP-43
and
On each of the claim dates
run
the
MA,
an
and cut his power away from the train at
power
west
to
CP-44
and
then proceed two
additional miles onto the Providence and Worcester Railroad where
he
picked
up
additional
cars
for
his
train.
Claimant then
proceeded back east to CP-43 and added these cars to the head end
of his train and resumed his trip to Framington.
for the move at Worcester froll.l CP-43
return to CP-43
is six miles.
The distance
to the P&W Railroad and
The agreed to mileage for
an
engineer operating between Selkirk, New York and Framington, MA
is 178 miles.
Claimant therefore claimed 184 miles for his trip
on each of the involved claim dates.
178
normal
Worcester.
miles
When
plus
six
Carrier
additional
denied
the
The claim was based upon
miles
for
the
move
at
claim,
the
Organization
placed it before this Board.
Article F-c-2
(a)
as modified by arbitration Award No. 458
states:
In road freight service, 108 miles or less, eight hours
or less (straightaway or turnaround) shall constitute a
day's work; miles in excess of 108 shall be paid for at
the mileage rate provided in the rate schedule
according to class of engine (weight on drivers) or
other power used.
Article F-s-4 of the Agreement states:
(a) When as part of a call or a regular assignment, an
engineer in road freight service is required to make
lap-back or side-trips, actual miles for a lap-back or
side-trip shall be included in the actual miles run and
paid for on a continuous time or mileage basis.
(b)
When an engineer in road freight service is
required to make a lap-back or side-trip that is not
covered by his assignment or call, the engineer shall
be paid the actual time or mileage, whichever is
greater, involved in the movement, separate from other
compensation for the tour of duty.
(c)
When an engineer in road freight service is
required to double any portion of the road, actual
miles for the double shall be included in the actual
miles run and paid for on a continuous time or mileage
basis.
Article VIII of the Award of Arbitration Board No. 458
states in pertinent part:
Section 1 - Road Crews
Road Crews may perform the following work in connection
with their own train without additional compensation .••
* * *
(d) Perform switching within switching limits at times
no yard crew is on duty ...
2
The
organization
argues
as
follows:
in
accordance
with
Articles F-c-2 and F-s-4 Claimant is entitled to payment of an
additional six (6) service miles for the service he performed on
each of the claim dates.
Carrier does not dispute the fact that
Claimant was required to run six additional miles.
The fact that
these miles were run within the Worcester Yard "switching limits"
is no basis for denying payment of the miles run.
An Engineer
working in through freight service is compensated on the basis of
how many miles he runs.
On the involved claim dates,
Claimant
was required to run 184 total miles, but was only compensated for
178
miles.
Carrier
is
attempting
to
place
restrictions
for
payment under Articles F-c-2 and F-s-4 which are not contained
anywhere in the wording of the Articles.
The application of such
unwarranted restrictions is clearly prohibited by various First
Division Awards.
Carrier
argues
as
follows:
the
additional
six
miles
at
issue constitute mileage run within the switching limits of an
intermediate location.
Neither Article F-s-1
(b) nor any other
contractual provision contemplates the payment of
connection
with
work
performed
at
any
m:il~s
intermediate
run in
point.
I
Furthermore,
the miles run within the yard switching limits do
not constitute lap-back miles under Article F-s-4.
is hardly "remote".
on
duty
at
the
The P&W Yard
Since there were no Carrier yard switchers
time
this
work
was
required,
Carrier
could
properly require Claimant to perform the work expected of Yard
switchers.
3
The Board has determined that the claim must be denied.
Initially,
it
must
be
noted
that
the
Board
has
not
considered the procedural argument originally raised by Carrier.
More specifically,
Carrier at first argued that the Board may
not have jurisdiction to hear this case.
prejudice to its position,
Thereafter , without
Carrier withdrew that argument and
requested that the Board render a decision in this case on its
merits.
As to those merits,
not
performing
Examination
of
a
the Board concludes that Claimant was
lap-back
when
relevant
Agreement
the
precedent,
leads
to
disagrees
with
the
this
doing
conclusion.
Organization's
the
disputed
language,
as
Moreover,
contention
well
the
that
work.
as
Board
it
is
irrelevant that the miles at issue were run within the Worcester
Yard
switching
location,
limits was
limits.
As
there
was
no
yard
crew
at
the
the work performed by Claimant wi thin the switching
sanctioned by Article VIII,
Award of Arbitration Board No. 458.
be denied.
4
Section
(1) (d)
of the
Accordingly, the claim must
AWARD
Claim denied.
carrier Member
s. E. Buchheit,
Neutral Member
5
ORGANIZATION DISSENT
TO
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 894
AWARD #1437
Actual miles run are not additional compensation as described in Article VIII, Section I Road Crews of Arbitration Award #458. Actual miles run are the basis of pay for Road
Locomotive Engineers.
If a Yard crew is or is not working at an initial, fmal, or intermediate terminal, has NO
bearing on payment of actual miles run by a Locomotive Engineer in his tour of duty.