Article 55 (Both Schedules) General Duties of Engineers, Firemen and Helpers (b) On arrival at terminal to place their locomotives, if the road is clear, opposite the coal chutes at the designated point at which they will be taken charge of and coaled by the shop staff. (a), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) not quoted. Enginemen in claiming under Article 4 are attempting to come within the scope of a rule which by its own terms covers only Roundhouse employes. Article 14 (a) provides for the continuance of time in all classes of service until the time engine is placed on designated track. In the instant case the designated track for passenger engines has been changed from the depot to the roundhouse at Battle Creek. We were unable to find any First Division awards wherein the Carrier's right to so designate had ever been challenged, however, in Award 4166 the Carrier's right to change their designated interchange track was upheld. To us the principle involved in that award is not unlike the principle in the case here at hand. Article 15 (a) clearly sets forth that departure from Roundhouse tracks by road crews can be a part of their assignments. Article 29 definitely provides for payment of such service on a mileage basis. It is in accordance with this article that payment is now being made. Attention is drawn to the 10 mile allowance for light running Elsdon to Dearborn Station, Chicago. The roundhouse is located at Elsdon and the actual distance traveled is 8 miles, the additional 2 miles being an arbitrary allowance to cover certain conditions at that point. In face of such a clearly drawn exception to the general provisions of the Article it certainly must be assumed that any other exception would likewise have to be included within the article in order to prevail. The absence of such is undeniable proof that payment of mileage alone is proper at Battle Creek. Article 55 contemplates delivery of locomotives to the coal dock by the incoming engine crew. Here again is reference made to a "designated" point. In spite of the above schedule provisions the employes have advanced the theory that because a hostler and assistant were used to change off passenger engines at Battle Creek (Nichols) when the occasion so required, during period that engines were usually run through, it is henceforth to be considered as hostler's duties regardless of circumstances. With this we cannot agree. Passenger engine crews not being used to handle the movement on those occasions was due to the fact they were assigned to go on and off duty at the depot. That such was proper in those circumstances is fully illustrated in First Division Award No. 6503 covering an occasion on this property when we used a passenger engineer at Port Huron, Michigan to perform service which was not included within his assignment. Your findings in that award were as follows: "It is shown that complainant Engineer H. B. Green regularly assigned to trains 35-36 operating daily except Sunday, between Port Huron and Detroit, Michigan, was, on May 26, 1939, brought on duty in advance of his usual reporting time for the purpose of handling gas-electric motor car arriving on train 34, from the depot at Port Huron to the roundhouse and return which is held to have been not part of his assignment on trains 35-36. Applying the principle outlined in the above findings to our passenger train operation through Battle Creek to us means one thing: Passenger train crews cannot be used to handle their engines between the depot and roundhouse unless such service is included within their assignment. Consequently the inclusion of light running within the assignments was effected by the bulletin of Feb. 21, 1942 as hereinbefore quoted. That there be no question as to whether the runs should have been readvertised we refer your Honorable Board to Article 47 (d) of the current Engineers' schedule. The interpretation of this article, agreed upon at meeting held with the organization November 24, 1933 and still in effect today, is as follows: "Case No. 13-It is requested that Article 47, paragraph D, be Interpreted as follows: 'On a change of one hour in the starting time of a yard job, two hours in the advertised or recognized leaving time of a passenger train, or assigned freight train, or on the change in initial or final terminal, the run or job will be advertised to the seniority district. It being understood that if an engineer on the run or job desires to remain on same, he may do so during the period of advertisement, and shall bid on same. If not the successful applicant, he may then exercise his seniority. It being further understood that if an engineer desires to leave the run or job under this rule, he must do so immediately the run or job is changed; and shall forfeit his right to bid on that run or job during that particular period of advertisement.' Decision-This request is granted." The inclusion of light running with an assignment, not being within the purview of the above rule, would exclude the readvertisement of the runs in question. Firemen do not have a rule included within their schedule pertaining to readvertisement. We have shown herein rules which definitely provide for the light running. The employes in setting forth past practice as controlling are not in accord with the findings contained in First Division Award No. 6324 which contains the following quotation: 46 * * As against the precise language of the rule the 'past practice' set forth in the record cannot be deemed controlling." A great many decisions of your Division show the application of this principle. Other awards which we feel sustain our position are First Division No. 299, 1401, 4506, 4507, 5401, 5942 and 6379 covering enginemen cases and 854 covering trainmen. Award 299 covered protest of firemen against being required to handle switches in connection with light movement between roundhouse and depot which work previously was handled by switchtenders. Your Board with Referee Swacker denied the protest with findings as follows: "There is no rule in schedule relieving firemen on light engines from throwing switches, and such work is a part of his duties in getting his engine to roundhouse under conditions in this case." We have no rules relieving either engineers or firemen from light movements. Award 1401 covers a situation in freight service wherein a practice of having engine crews relieved by hostlers in the yard was discontinued and thereafter engine crews were required to handle engine to designated track. Your Board's findings were as follows: "It is found that method of handling freight trains into yards at Gladstone made effective July 12, 1934 is not in violation of Schedule rules governing such movements." Other than being in freight service the circumstances in that award appear to be identical with our situation at Battle Creek. Awards 4506 and 4507 covered claims of engine crew who normally went on and off duty at the passenger station. On certain occasions they were required to handle engines to and from roundhouse. Both the station and roundhouse were within the same switching district. Your findings there were: "These cases involve claims for taking an engine from the passenger station to the roundhouse on certain days when steam engines were used instead of the Diesel Electric generally used. The rule invoked by the Carrier to pay merely the mileage involved would be generally applicable, but in this case there is nothing in the bulletin to indicate that the crew might be called upon, on occasion, to do this work. It must, therefore, be considered that the bulletin reasonably contemplates release at the passenger station, which is what occurs ordinarily. Therefore, when a steam engine is used irregularly as in the instant case and required to make the further trip to National City it constitutes starting a new day.” (Underscoring ours.) It appears from these findings that had the light running been shown in the Bulletin the claim would have been treated as without merit and the payment of mileage involved would have been proper. From this, it is apparent that our crews, being properly bulletined, can claim nothing further than the mileage involved. Award No. 5401 covered claim of an engineer account of alleged hostler movement which occurred before the engine was placed on designated track and before engineer had been relieved from duty. The claim was denied, but of special interest is the following quotation taken from the findings: "In the absence of rules clearly establishing the right it will not be held that the Carrier and employes contracted to pay and to be paid two days' pay for one day's work." It is definite that our rules do not provide for two days' pay for one day's service, and in the instant case, Article 29 provides to the contrary. At present engineers and firemen operating between Battle Creek and Chicago or return receive in excess of $15.00 and $12.00 respectively for on an average of 6 hours work. Between Battle Creek and Port Huron it is $13.00 and $10.50 for 5 hours work. They would now supplement regular earnings to engineers by the amount of $7.56 per day, and to firemen $6.27 per day. These are the hostler and helper rates for which claim is being made. Award 5942 covered claim of engine crew for additional day account handling locomotive light at a point where outside hostlers were maintained. Although the crew normally did not make such moves, the claim was declined, the Board finding: "The facts disclosed by the record in this case under the rules cited do not support the claim." In award No. 6379 claim was presented for restoration of outside hostler and helper service and for time lost in behalf of hostling crews who previously had handled passenger engines between station and roundhouse. Because of certain terminal changes hostlers were relieved from this work, yard crews thereafter handling the movement. The claim was denied and by so doing your Board's determination certainly was not influenced by past practice of hostlers therein mentioned. This determination is equally applicable in the case at hand. In addition it must be remembered that no hostlers or helpers were displaced at Battle Creek. Award 854, covering train crew claims resulting from a change in the starting and release point within a terminal, likewise were declined, your findings there being: "Prior to February 18, 1935, the assignment provided for the release of crews at South Omaha. Under Bulletin Nos. 6 and 7 crews are required upon arrival at South Omaha, to return with engine and caboose only to Gibson, a point located within the general terminal limits of South Omaha, and tie up. On outbound trip the crews are required to start from Gibson, proceed to South Omaha with engine and caboose only and pick up their train. The only difference between requirement under Bulletins Nos. 6 and 7 is the tie up point at Gibson, located within the general terminal limits of South Omaha." The extra movement involved in that award is no different in principle than the move involved in the instant claim. After consideration of the rules, decisions and information outlined herein, Carrier is unable to in any manner conceive where employes' instant claim can be construed as containing merit, and in conclusion further states that any holding to the contrary would be basis for employes to contend the principle thereby set up for light running in passenger service at Battle Creek would be equally applicable to all terminals on the system in both freight and passenger service. In view of the facts and circumstances in these claims, we respectfully ask that they be denied. Data in support of Carrier's position in this claim has heretofore in substance been presented to employes. Oral hearing is desired. (Exhibits not reproduced.) FINDINGS: The First Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that: The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934. This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein. The parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon. This is a claim that appears to involve 12 engineers' claims each day and 12 firemen's claims each day since early 1942 for hostler's pay in addition to road pay. They arise out of the fact that there are three trains in each direction stopping at Battle Creek. The engine is taken off and run to roundhouse by incoming crew and the outgoing crew brings new engine from roundhouse to continue the trip. Prior to early 1942, hostlers made the movement of engine to and from roundhouse in some instances only, usually when a mechanical failure occurred. Article 29 is cited by the Carrier and this provides for payment on a mileage basis in cases where the engine runs light to and from trains when the distance exceeds one mile. Awards have been cited in this case where an article of agreement on other roads specifically stipulates that a movement such as is in dispute in instant claim must be made by hostlers. On this railroad, however, no such contract exists which would surmount Article 29 which, therefore, is controlling in this case. No persuasion is introduced which influences us to controvert the principle so often announced in Findings of this Division that except in unusual circumstances it is inappropriate to pay a second day for one day's work. AWARD Claim denied. BY ORDER OF FIRST DIVISION NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD ATTEST: (Sgd.) T. S. McFarland Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of February, 1949. Docket No. 21875 FIRST DIVISION NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD 39 South La Salle St., Chicago 3, Illinois The First Division consisted of the regular members and in PARTIES TO DISPUTE: BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN INTERNATIONAL-GREAT NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of Engineer C. E. Eaton and Fireman Walter Dickinson for 100 miles account making intermediate turn or lap back trip between Riverside and Dodge stations, February 9, 1945. JOINT STATEMENT OF FACTS: Engineer C. E. Eaton and Fireman Walter Dickinson were assigned in pool freight service between Longview and Houston with home terminal at Palestine. On February 9th, 1945, this crew operated Extra 377 South, Palestine to Houston, 151 miles. They were called at Palestine for 8:30 A. M., reported at 8:00 A. M. and departed 8:30 A. M. with 15 loads and 18 empties, 1185 tons. The crew arrived at Trinity, 65 miles south of Palestine at 10:55 A. M., where they set out 4 empties and took water and departed at 11:15 A. M., they arrived at Riverside, 72 miles south of Palestine, at 11:30 A. M., set out one load, then after starting from Riverside laid down before getting train past south siding switch at Riverside. This account it being a steep up grade away from Riverside. Engine 377 is a pasenger locomotive with tonnage rating southbound Palestine to Dodge of 1200 tons and from Dodge to Houston of 1600 tons. However, Engine 377 stalled on hill at Riverside, which hill extends from Riverside to Dodge, 8 miles south of Riverside. The crew cut off the head portion of the train and handled it to Dodge, which was the first available siding they could double to and get started with their train and returned for the rear portion of their train. They did not have time to carry the rear portion of train to Dodge for first class passenger train No. 22 which was due at Dodge at 12:40 P. M., at Riverside 12:50 P. M. They, therefore, moved rear portion of train into siding at Riverside for No. 22, which arrived 1:05 P. M. and departed 1:07 P. M. and for No. 21, which passed Riverside at 1:42 P. M. They then proceeded with the rear of the train to Dodge, arriving at 2:05 P. M., picked up the head end of the train and departed 2:15 P. M. They arrived at Percival Yard Houston 5:45 P. M. and were released at Congress Avenue Yard, Houston at 7:05 P. M. Conductor E. R. Hart in charge of this train reported his delays as follows: |