AWARDS 122 - SUPERVISING CREWS IN MORE THAN ONE YARD

Fourth Division Award No. 2142 (Weston)

"OPINION OF BOARD: The theory of the present claim is that Carrier violated the applicable Agreement by abolishing the first trick yardmaster position at Allentown, Pennsylvania, and reassigning its duties.

"It appears that the work content of the position in question had decreased to an appreciable extent during the period leading up to its abolishment. Some duties of that position remained, however, and they were assigned to the third trick yardmaster at Allentown and to the first trick yardmaster at Bethlehem, which is a distance of from four to six miles from the Allentown Yard. There is no competent evidence that any yardmaster responsibilities or duties were assigned to non-yardmasters.

"That Carrier possesses the right to abolish a position at a location where the work has fallen off to a considerable extent is beyond dispute. (See Third Division Awards 11511 and 11294). Petitioner maintains, however, that it is a breach of Rules 2 (c) and 12 for work of the abolished position to be performed by a Bethlehem yardmaster. Rule 2 (c) lists separately the Allentown, Bethlehem and other yardmaster positions with their respective locations, tricks and rates of pay. Rule 12 shows that the Agreement supersedes all existing agreements, practices and understandings and has been applicable during all times material to the present dispute.

"Neither Rule 2 (c), 12 nor any other provision of the Agreement, expressly or by reasonable interpretation, prohibits Carrier from abolishing a yardmaster position or assigning an employe to work at two different locations. The mere listing of locations, tricks and rates of pay for positions does not provide a sound basis, whether considered independently or in connection with other rules of the Agreement, for the important restriction on managerial authority that is sought here by Petitioner.

"Notwithstanding Third Division Awards 1296 and 11368, which in any event concerned stronger rules than are here in question, the great weight of authority and well considered opinions of the Board are to the effect that Carrier has the right to require employes to work in two different locations where, as here, no contract provision or past practice provides to the contrary and the two locations are within the same seniority district and agreement. See, e.g., Third Division Awards 6944, 8428, 12044, 12332, 13201 and 14126.

"No violation of any applicable rule or statute has been established and the claim will be denied."

Fourth Division Award No. 2638 (Weston)

"The use of Eastbound Yardmasters for Westbound yard work is not violative of the Agreement. The territories they are called upon to cover are within the same switching and seniority district and about 1000 feet apart. No rule in the Agreement imposes any limitation on territories assigned to yardmasters' positions and Rule 3 appears to imply that a yardmaster may work in more than one location since its provisions regarding location of work are limited to the requirement that `Regularly assigned yardmasters shall have a designated time and starting point for going on duty, and unless otherwise mutually agreed will be relieved at the starting point.'

"There is no indication that Carrier has breached Rule 3 or any provision regarding compensation or overtime and we do not regard the use of yardmasters for yardmaster work within the same seniority and switching district as a change in their working conditions merely because they are required to cover a more extensive area in the same general location, the Frankfort Yard, in which they have always been employed. . . ."

Fourth Division Award No. 2960 (O'Brien)

"Rather the yard foreman reports to the yardmaster at Glenwood for instructions and directs the work based on these instructions. Furthermore, since April 10, 1972 the yard crew also reports for duty at Glenwood, receives instructions from the Glenwood yardmaster and then proceeds to Pittsburgh Yard under the directions of the Glenwood yardmaster. It was within Carrier's managerial rights to determine that its operations at Pittsburgh Yard were such that full time supervision of the one yard engine operating there was not necessary and that such engine could properly operate under the supervision of the yardmaster at Glenwood Yard. And Petitioner cannot complain that the Glenwood yardmaster is located six miles from the Pittsburgh Yard as it is Carrier's right to determine the amount and nature of supervision required. Since the yardmaster duties are now being performed by the yardmaster at Glenwood we can find no violation of the Scope Rule and must deny the claim."

Fourth Division Award No. 2961 (O'Brien)

"For the reason enumerated in Award 2960 we must deny the claim. We conclude that yardmaster work at Pittsburgh is not being performed by non-yardmaster. Rather the employes are being supervised by the yardmaster at Glenwood. They report to him at Glenwood, receive orders and instructions, from him, then proceed to Pittsburgh to perform the work. No one at Pittsburgh assumes the responsibilities of a yardmaster. Thus for the reasons stated in Award 2960 we will deny the claim."