CARRIER OPERATING RULES ASSIGNED DUTIES TO CRAFT (48)

Fourth Division Award No. 3480 (McBrearty)

"Carrier objects to any consideration of its Operating Rules on the ground that such rules `are applied unilaterally by the Carrier.' However, as to the propriety of considering Operating Rule 520, it must be understood that this rule was presented for the purpose of disclosing the manner by which the Yardmaster determines his duties, and what duties Carrier expects of him in connection with his employment. For this purpose the evidence is admissible. (See Fourth Division Awards 3335, 3297, 2769, 2032, 1380, 102, 100, 88, and 86)."

Fourth Division Award No. 3335 (Dolnick)

"`The primary duties of a Yardmaster are to supervise the switching of cars in the freight yard and to issue orders to all yard employees' (Award No. 2032). And what constitutes exclusive yardmaster work must be determine from the Scope Rule and from any existing applicable Operating Rule."

Fourth Division Award No. 3297 (Dolnick)

"It is true, as we have said in Award No. 2032, that the `primary duties of a Yardmaster are to supervise the switching of cars in the freight yard and to issue orders to all yard employees.' While the Yardmasters' Scope Rule neither defines nor describes the work of Yardmasters, Carrier's Operating Rule No. 1201 does. It states, among other things, that Yardmasters `have charge of their respective yards, of the making up and distribution of trains and the handling of cars therein, of yard employees, and train and engine crews while within yard limits. . . .

"'Instruct trains concerning set-outs and pick-ups and where to yard trains' and `Instruct yard crews on switching to perform' generally fall within the description of Yardmaster work which exclusively belongs to them under the Scope Rule. It is not work which belongs exclusively to Clerks."

Fourth Division Award No. 2769 (Weston)

"Since Carrier has challenged the claim that such work must be performed by yardmasters, Petitioner has the burden of establishing the essential elements of the claim. The Scope Rule is not helpful in that regard for it does not define the duties that belong to yardmasters. While yardmaster functions are not always capable of precise definition it is generally accepted that they consist, in the main, of supervising yard employees and supervision of the switching and making up of trains in railroad yards (See Awards 184, 797, 836, and 1151 as well as R.400N-7 of Carrier's `Rules for conducting Transportation.'). The threshold issue therefore is whether the record establishes that the special duty conductor performed such duties in railroad yard."

Fourth Division Award No. 2032 (Dolnick)

"The primary duties of a Yardmaster are to supervise the switching of cars in the freight yard and to issue orders to all yard employees. while the Scope Rule of the Agreement does not define or describe the work of Yardmaster employes, Carrier's Operating Department Rule 905 does. It says:

"`Yardmasters

"`905. Yardmasters are under the direction of trainmaster and agent. They are responsible for the efficient and economical operation of yards and the prompt movement of cars and trains. They have supervision over all trains, engines and employes in yards.'"

Fourth Division Award No. 1580 (Burch)

"This is another in an extremely long line of cases involving the abolishment of a yardmaster's position, the claim being that employes not covered by the yardmasters' agreement are performing yardmasters' work in violation of the scope rule.

"`Rule 1 - Scope. The term "yardmaster" as used herein shall be understood to include Assistant general yardmasters, district yardmasters and yardmasters.'

"Our attention, in this regard, has also been called to the Carrier's `Book of Rules' which sets out in some detail the duties imposed on yardmasters.

"The `scope' of a yardmaster's duties has been before this Board innumerable times and as yet no final settlement has been made of the problem. Admittedly a yardmaster's duties are supervisory, but of a general nature which are not easily enumerated.

"So many cases have been cited by both parties that precedent in this type of case is almost valueless. Out of the myriad cases there do seem to be some principles which deserve our consideration:

"1) Carrier has the right to determine what, if any, supervision it wants, in the absence of specific agreement.

"2) Under a scope rule such as we have in this case and the `Book of Rules' of the Carrier, infra yardmaster's work must be performed by yardmasters. To hold otherwise would mean that yardmasters' agreements were meaningless."

Fourth Division Award No. 1380 (Coburn)

"Because the Scope Rule of the Agreement contains no precise definition of yardmaster duties and functions, it is necessary to read that rule in the light of the Carrier's operating rules. . . ."

Fourth Division Award No. 102 (Messmore)

". . . The preponderant duties of yardmasters are to supervise or to assist in supervising the work of employes engaged in the making up, breaking up and handling trains and in general yard switching over a small yard or an assigned district of a large railroad yard and to perform related work. In this connection, it might again be stated that in previous awards rendered by this Board the carrier's rule promulgated by it and given to the yardmasters so that they may know the duties required of them, 890 to 894, inclusive, and as set out in Docket No. 100, Award No. 100, together with other rules set out therein, are pertinent for the consideration of this Board in determining the issue as to whether or not the scope agreement has been violated.

* * *

"The scope and other rules of the agreement define both the character of the work that is to be rendered by the employes, the conditions under which the work is to be performed and that apply when a classification of work is changed and by which a less favorable rate of pay or condition of employment is established. Basically, the carrier by Rules 890 and 894, inclusive, supra, defines the duties of yardmasters. The scope rule does not define them. A specific line of demarcation as to limitation of such duties has never been adequately presented. If the rules of the carrier could not be considered in conjunction with the scope rule, the scope rule would be meaningless and fall of its own weight. Rules of the carrier affecting this supervisory position are applicable."

Fourth Division Award No. 100 (Messmore)

"The foregoing authorities establish that employes are entitled to all of the work of their distinctive class of positions embraced in the scope of agreement, this includes the yardmaster class of employees; also that the scope and other rules of the agreement are to be considered. Basically the carrier defined such duties of the yardmasters in Rule 890 and 894, inclusive, supra, to its satisfaction. The scope rule does not define them. The scope rule without consideration of such duties would be meaningless in an attempt to adjudicate disputes of this nature if the rules of the carrier should not be considered in conjunction therewith. Consequently, rules of the carrier affecting this supervisory position are applicable. Yardmasters are supervisory employes. Their duties are many and varied. A specific line of demarcation as to the limitations of such duties has never been adequately presented."

Fourth Division Award No. 88 (Messmore)

"As to the propriety considering the foregoing rules, 890 to 894, inclusive, it must be understood that they are presented for the purpose of disclosing the manner by which the employe determines his duties and what duties the employer expects of him in connection with his employment. For this purpose this evidence is admissible."

Fourth Division Award No. 86 (Messmore)

"We have detailed the evidence to some considerable extent to disclose the full purport of the controversy and deem further statement thereon unnecessary. This brings us to the direct issue submitted and in this respect we say with candor there has not been formulated insofar as the attention of this Board has been directed to or within the record of the instant case a scope rule defining the specific duties of a yardmaster. The carrier in the instant case promulgated a set of rules outlining duties properly assignable to the yardmasters, rules 890 to 894, supra, which are self-explanatory. These rules form the basis of the yardmasters' duties so far as the carrier is concerned and are proper to consider here. . . .

"The foregoing establishes that employes are entitled to all of the work of their distinctive class and positions embraced within the scope of an agreement. . . .

". . . Yardmasters are supervisory employes. Their duties are many and varied. Experience teaches that a specific line of demarcations to the limitations of such duties has never been adequately presented. Basically the carrier has defined such duties in rules 890 to 894, inclusive, to its satisfaction. The scope agreement does not define them. The scope agreement with consideration of such duties of the carrier would be meaningless in attempting to adjudicate disputes of this character if the rules of the carrier could and should not be considered in conjunction therewith. Rules of the carrier affecting this supervisory position are applicable. They are evidence of the carrier's own making and by them it is bound. . . ."

Fourth Division Award No. 2189 (Seidenberg)

"The Board must hold that it is a reasonable assumption that when clerks and operators were instructing and directing road and yard crews to perform the above-mentioned duties they also are supervising these crews to insure that these functions are properly executed, absent the presence of a yardmaster. The nature of these duties demanded that the clerks and operators be more than a conduit for relaying or transmitting instructions. Railroad operations are not as cut and dried as the routine operation of a production line in a factory. In the course of railroad operations variable and unusual factors appear requiring a supervisor to make judgments and reach decisions to insure that the rendered instructions are carried out in the proper manner. The above mentioned work for many years had been supervised by a yardmaster, and the record now clearly indicates that the same supervisory work is now being divided up and parceled out among several classes or crafts of employes not within the scope of the Yardmasters' Agreement. On the record before it, the Board had no recourse but to find that work existed which was within the purview of the Yardmasters' Agreement, and said work was being transferred to, and performed by, employes not encompassed by the Yardmasters' Agreement, to the detriment of the Claimant's contractual rights."

Public Law Board No. 5189, Award No. 1 (Meyers)

"This Board has reviewed the entire record in this case, including the arguments compiled during an executive session, and we find that the controlling language appears in Rules 803 and 803(A) of the Carrier’s Consolidated Code of Operating Rules. Those Rules state the following:

"803. Where a yardmaster is employed, the general direction and government of the yard is in his charge. At such locations, employees in yard, train and engine service must comply with his instructions. Where no yardmaster is employed, such employes will be governed by instructions of agents in doing work at stations.

"803 (A). The yardmaster is responsible for and shall have direct supervision over the work of yard crews, clerks and all other employes working in the yard. He must see that they carry out their work in a safe, efficient and economical manner, in accordance with the rules, regulations and instructions of the Company. He is charged with the prompt and regular movement of cars, also giving special attention to the proper mark-up of trains and to their prompt movement into and out of the yard.

"The record reveals that the Carrier implemented the ten-hour shift schedule on June 2, 1989. In implementing this new schedule, the Carrier’s Assistant Superintendent issued instructions that specified that yardmasters were to leave work orders for those periods of time when no yardmaster was on duty. These instructions make clear that, just as they do when actually present and on duty, the yardmasters are responsible for programming the movement of trains and crews in the yard during the four hours each day that no yardmaster is on duty.

"On the date that the instant claim arose, and in accordance with the Assistant Superintendent’s instructions, the Claimant left written orders with the Carrier’s Control Center relating to the incoming ore train. There is no dispute that the Claimant’s written orders subsequently were changed by the trainmaster, who is a non-yardmaster employee.

"Rules 803 and 803(A) make it very clear that the yardmaster is responsible for and exercises supervision over the yard crews, clerks, and other employees working in the yard. It is the yardmaster who is charged with the prompt and regular movement of cars. The Fourth Division, in numerous awards, has upheld those yardmaster rights. That work cannot be reassigned to a non-yardmaster employee.

"In Fourth Division Award #4308, the Board stated:

"We are forced to conclude that in the changing of instructions, non-yardmasters have supervised employees in duties assigned by the Carrier to yardmasters. Specifically, the record is complete with documentation that train operators are making their own decisions and altering the yardmasters pre-programmed instructions on the handling of trains. We have studied at length the Carrier’s denials, arguments and awards in support of position, but find that on the whole of this case at bar we must sustain the claim in those 18 cases. This is consistent with past awards of this Fourth Division (Awards 3204, 3009).

"The Carrier has asserted that because the Organization is claiming that the Carrier violated the Scope Rule, the Organization bears the burden of proving that the type of work at issue has been exclusively performed by yardmasters on a system-wide basis. This standard is applicable in situations involving only claimed violations of the Scope Rule. The instant matter, however, is not so limited.

"The Board has reviewed the Carrier’s argument that this case involves a claimed Scope Rule violation and that the Organization has not shown their rights to be exclusive and system-wide in the past. This Board finds, however, that this dispute does not involve a violation of the Scope Rule, but rather a violation of Carrier Operating Rules 803 and 803(A), which specifically assign the work at issue to the yardmasters. These two rules charge the yardmaster with the responsibility for directing and programming all train and crew movements within the yard; it gives the yardmaster supervisory responsibility over all employees in yard, train, and engine service in connection with such movements. The record does not contain any evidence of rules or operating procedures by which yardmasters are expressly authorized to delegate these responsibilities, or by which other employees are expressly authorized to assume such duties. In fact, the Carrier’s issuance of instructions that yardmasters are to leave orders governing train movements for those time periods when no yardmaster actually is on duty represents the Carrier’s acknowledgment that this work properly is done only by the yardmaster.

"In further support of this finding is the fact that the Carrier’s June 1989 instructions relating to the implementation of the shift emphasizes that not only must the yardmaster leave orders to cover the entire period during which no yardmaster is on duty, but that the yardmaster is to make sure that the dock foreman understands that the orders are not to be changed; that the orders, in any event, are not to be altered unless absolutely necessary; and that the personnel on duty during such periods can reach Carrier personnel, presumably both on- and off-duty personnel. These provisions suggest that the Carrier anticipated that any necessary changes in the yardmaster’s orders would come only with the off-duty yardmaster’s approval after consultation between the on-duty personnel and the off-duty yardmaster.

"With respect to the remedy, this Board finds that the Claimant in this case was the regularly assigned yardmaster on the dates that the program instructions were changed. The Claimant was off duty and available to be called to perform the yardmaster work that was performed improperly by the trainmasters. If the Claimant had been called to perform the yardmaster work, he would have been paid at the rate of time and one-half. This Board must find that the Organizations’ request that the Claimant be paid at the time and one-half rate be sustained."

Public Law Board No. 5189, Award No. 2 (Meyers)

"There is no question that the yardmasters are required to program and supervise the movement of trains and crews in the yard. In addition to the Scope Rule, which states that supervision over employees directly engaged in the movement of cars is required of the yardmaster, the Carrier’s Consolidated Code of Operating Rules 803 and 803 (A) are relevant to this dispute. Those Rules state:

"803. Where a yardmaster is employed, the general direction and government of the yard is in his charge. At such locations, employees in yard, train and engine service must comply with his instructions. Where no yardmaster is employed, such employes will be governed by instructions of agents in doing work at stations.

"803 (A). The yardmaster is responsible for and shall have direct supervision over the work of yard crews, clerks and all other employes working in the yard. He must see that they carry out their work in a safe, efficient and economical manner, in accordance with the rules, regulations and instructions of the Company. He is charged with the prompt and regular movement of cars, also giving special attention to the proper mark-up of trains and to their prompt movement into and out of the yard.

"Also applicable to this dispute is the fact that, in implementing this new schedule, the Carrier’s Assistant Superintendent issued instructions that specified that yardmasters were to leave work orders for those periods of time when no yardmaster was on duty. These instructions make clear that, just as they do when actually present and on duty, the yardmasters are responsible for programming the movement of trains and crews in the yard during the hours each day that no yardmaster is on duty.

"In this case, there is no question that the trainmasters changed the instructions that had been left by the yardmasters. Since the June 12, 1989, Agreement, that work has been yardmaster’s work. The record definitely establishes that programming the movements of trains and crews in the yard is the responsibility of yardmasters, and developing and leaving work order for the period when no yardmaster is on duty is a critical part of this very responsibility. If the Carrier wants to change this aspect of the June 12, 1989, Agreement, it must do so through negotiations, not through the unilateral reassignment of work.

"Rules 803 and 803(A) make it very clear that the yardmaster is responsible for and exercises supervision over the yard crews, clerks, and other employees working in the yard. It is the yardmaster who is charged with the prompt and regular movement of cars. The Fourth Division, in numerous awards, has upheld those yardmaster rights. That work cannot be reassigned to non-yardmaster employees.

"In Fourth Division Award #4308, the Board held:

"We are forced to conclude that in the changing of instructions, non-yardmasters have supervised employees in duties assigned by the Carrier to yardmasters. Specifically, the record is complete with documentation that train operators are making their own decisions and altering the yardmasters pre-programmed instructions on the handling of trains. We have studied at length the Carrier’s denials, arguments and awards in support of position, but find that on the whole of this case at bar we must sustain the claim in those 18 cases. This is consistent with past awards of this Fourth Division (Awards 3204, 3009).

"This Board has reviewed the Carrier’s argument that this case involves a claimed Scope Rule violation and that the Organization has not shown their rights to be exclusive and system-wide in the past. The Board finds, however, that this dispute does not involve a violation of the Scope Rule, but rather a violation of Carrier Operating Rules 803 and 803(A), which specifically assign the work at issue to the yardmasters. These two rules charge the yardmaster with the responsibility for directing and programming all train and crew movements within the yard; it gives the yardmaster supervisory responsibility over all employees in yard, train, and engine service in connection with such movements. The record does not contain any evidence of rules or operating procedures by which yardmasters are expressly authorized to delegate these responsibilities, or by which other employees are expressly authorized to assume such duties. In fact, the Carrier’s issuance of instructions that yardmasters are to leave orders governing train movements for those time periods when no yardmaster actually is on duty represents the Carrier’s acknowledgment that this work properly is done only by the yardmaster.

"In further support of this finding is the fact that the Carrier’s June 1989 instructions relating to the implementation of the shift emphasizes that not only must the yardmaster leave orders to cover the entire period during which no yardmaster is on duty, but that the yardmaster is to make sure that the dock foreman understands that the orders are not to be changed; that the orders, in any event, are not to be altered unless absolutely necessary; and that the personnel on duty during such periods can reach Carrier personnel, presumably both on- and off-duty personnel. These provisions suggest that the Carrier anticipated that any necessary changes in the yardmaster’s orders would come only with the off-duty yardmaster’s approval after consultation between the on-duty personnel and the off-duty yardmaster.

"The Carrier also has asserted that the record does not show that all of the changes at issue were initiated by or involved a trainmaster. This Board finds, however, that the record conclusively establishes that on the dates in question, changes were made in the programmed work orders left by the yardmaster. Moreover, these changes definitely were initiated by non-yardmaster employees; this is necessarily so in light of the fact that no yardmaster was on duty when the changes were made. These facts establish that the claimed violations did occur."