Page images

point to trainmen and the inspection and repair of cars was performed at Rose Lake. The work assigned to trainmen at Collinsville was not that of an inspector but that of making the air inspections ordinarily made by road trainmen. It was incidental to the work of the trainmen and it could properly be assigned to them. The work of inspection for the purpose of repair and the making of the repairs was assigned to inspectors at Rose Lake, who either performed it at that point or came to Collinsville to do it. Carrier was acting within the prerogatives of management in handling this work as it did.” (Emphasis ours.)

It may be seen from the foregoing mentioned awards that the practice of trainmen coupling and uncoupling air hoses is a universal one.

The history of coupling and uncoupling hose is that this function has not been exclusively assigned to, or performed by any particular craft. Referee George Cheney in an Arbitration Award, between the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen and certain participating carriers of the Eastern, Western and Southeastern Railroads, released August 1, 1951, in connection with the coupling and uncoupling hose question, stated:

“The evolutionary circumstances just detailed, are persuasive that from the inauguration of the air brake systems to modern times, trainmen, yardmen and carmen have all performed the Coupling Function. From the perspective of interpretations placed upon the restrictive rules themselves by the parties, such rules do not establish hard fast exclusive craft boundaries as between the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen and the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen, allocating the performance of the Coupling Function solely to carmen. On the contrary, present rules portray examples of the over-lapping of craft lines, and illustrations of tasks which are common to the crafts of both the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. It should also be observed that this conclusion is not original with the present referee. The Federal District Court, in the case of Shipley versus Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Company, 83 F. Supp. 722, previously reached an identical conclusion, from which significantly no appeal was taken."

The carrier contends its position with regard to tasks which are common to the crafts of both Brotherhood of Railway Carmen and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen has not been altered by any arrangement with the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen. Under the carmen's classification of work: Rule 154, which does not mention coupling air hose, the carman's known duties are listed. Under the clause in carman's Rule 154 providing that “* * * all other work generally recognized as carman's work," the carrier contends. that it has never, by written agreement, oral agreement or past practice, recognized the coupling functions and making air tests as being within the exclusive province of the carmen's craft.


The carrier has demonstrated hereinbefore that

1. Coupling of air hoses and making air tests is not exclusive work of carmen;

2. Carmen's Rule 154 is not violated when trainmen couple air hose and make air tests; and

3. Continuance of the second shift carman's position was not justifiable.

therefore, the claim in the instant dispute is wholly without merit and should be denied in its entirety.

FINDINGS: The Second 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.

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

The Old Blue Island Yard is not a repair facility, and the work of coupling and uncoupling air hose and testing air there is purely incidental to switching operations. When repairs become necessary there for the movement of a car, carmen are sent out from Blue Island Yard, a part of the same seniority district, to perform minor repairs sufficient to permit its movement to the latter yard for more extensive repairs by carmen.

In general, in the absence of specific agreement, the work of coupling and uncoupling air hose and testing air has been held exclusively reserved to carmen only when performed as an incident to their regular maintenance and repair duties and inspection incident thereto. Awards 32 (without a referee), 457, 1333, 1370, 1372, 1554, 1626, 1627, 1636, 1838, 2253, 3091, 3335, 3340, 3593, 3652, 3714, 3745, 3758 and others. See also Cheney Award of August 1, 1951, and Shipley v. P. & L. E. R.R. Co., 83 F. Suppl. 722, therein cited.

The claimants cite a number of instances in which similar claims were granted, without showing the full circumstances. The carrier cites instances of denials of such claims, also without detailing the full circumstances, but showing that air hose coupling and air testing was not recognized as exclusively carmen's work.

In Award 1626, where the claimants likewise relied upon instances of claim settlements by the carrier's officers in support of their claims of exclusive right to couple and uncouple air hoses, this Division said:

“Nowhere do we find evidence of any intent on the part of the carrier to give the work of coupling and uncoupling air hose exclusively to carmen. We adhere to the principle announced in a long line of awards by this Division that the coupling and uncoupling of air hose is the exclusive work of carmen only where it is in

cidental to the making of inspections and repairs, unless the rule is enlarged by special agreement.”


Claim denied.


ATTEST: Harry J. Sassaman

Executive Secretary

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of February, 1963.


A reading of the Cheney Award and Shipley v. P. & L.E. R.R. Co., will readily reveal that they are inapposite. The pertinent Court cases are Virginian Ry. Co. v. System Federation No. 40, 57 S. Ct. 592 and Order of R. R. Telegraphers vs. Railway Express Agency, 64 S. Ct. 585.

The majority in quoting an excerpt from Award 1626 to support the present findings seemingly overlook that part of the quote reading “... unless the rule is enlarged by special agreement.” That there was a special agreement in the instant case is shown by letter of February 6, 1946, addressed to the General Chairman of the Carmen by the Superintendent of Equipment, in which it is stated:


I have hereby agreed that we will ... perform the work at both locations, namely Old Blue Island Yard and LaGrange, with I.H.B.R.R. Carmen forces.

... we will therefore agree ... to comply with the agreement enacted here this A. M. ..."

The awards cited by the majority show a lack of evaluation of Second Division awards. In Award 1372 on the New York Central Railroad, of which the Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad and the Chicago River and Indiana Railroad are subsidiaries, the parties there, as here, by settlement reached on the property by those in authority to settle such claims, decided that the nature of the instant work was carmen's work and the majority should have so held here.

C. E. Bagwell
T. E. Losey
E. J. McDermott
Robert E. Stenzinger
James B. Zink

Docket No. 3863




The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Howard A. Johnson when award was rendered.



DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L.-C. I. 0. (Carmen)



1. That the Carrier violated the Rules of the current Agreement when on March 11, 1958 it laid off four (4) Carmen in Halstead Street Yard of the (Chicago Junction Railway Company) The Chicago River and Indiana Railroad Company and transferred their work to the Trainmen.

2. That these carmen who were laid off on March 11, 1958 Messrs. A. Cameron, E. Mokasak, B. W. Patti and J. Grekovicz be paid for all time lost until they are returned to service.

EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is an agreement in effect between the (Chicago Junction Railway Company) The Chicago River and Indiana Railroad and System Federation No. 103, which reads as follows:



And All That Class Of Employes Represented By,


1-International Association of Machinists.

2-International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders and

Helpers of America.

3—International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers and


4-Sheet Metal Workers' International Association.

5—International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

6-Brotherhood Railway Carmen Of America."

'It is understood that this agreement shall apply to those who perform the work specified in this agreement in the maintenance of equipment, maintenance of way, signal maintenance, telegraph maintenance and all other departments wherein work covered by this agreement is performed.'

There are three shifts of Carmen employed by the (Chicago Junction Railway Company) The Chicago River and Indiana Railroad, whose hours are, from 6:00 A. M. to 2:00 P. M., 2:00 P. M. to 10:00 P. M. and 10:00 P. M. to 6:00 A. M.

These men inspect cars, couple and uncouple air hose and inspect same for defects, together with coupling hose for switching purposes, change defective hose and make all necessary repairs except those cars which are sent to the shop for repairs. These positions were bulletined under Rule 18, of the current agreement and classified under Rule 154 of the Carmen's Special Work Rules. These four carmen worked in Halstead Street Yards until they were laid off and their work turned over to the Trainmen. On March 7, 1958 the following bulletin was posted.

"Chicago, Illinois
March 7, 1958


All positions of Inspector Repairer at Halstead Street are abolished.

Those effected by the reduction will exercise their seniority rights as permitted under the Shop Crafts Agreement.

Signed/W. J. Presto

cc: T. J. Lyon

P. Balchitis, Local Chairman
J. Presto, Local Committee"

On March 11, the work that these men were doing was turned over to the trainmen who were given instructions to couple and uncouple the air hose, bleed cars which the carmen were doing and the Trainmen have performed this work continually since that time.

POSITION OF EMPLOYES: It is submitted that the agreement covers the Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad and the Chicago River and Indiana Railroad on which the rules were violated and claims for pay for these men have been made. All previous claims were made under Rule 154 of the Carmen's Special Rules and Rule 32 of the General Rules, the carrier having agreed that these rules were violated and paid all claims up to December 22, 1957. In addition to this, the superintendent of equipment agreed with General Vice Chairman M. J. McGuiness that the coupling of air hose and bleeding of air is carmen's work.

« PreviousContinue »