Road Crews Performing Yard Service Y2

Road Crews Performing Yard Service Y2

Postby Webmaster » Sat May 10, 2014 2:28 pm

Road Crews Performing Yard Service (Initial & Final Terminal)working Conductor only or reduced crews.

Switching occurs when the crew enters or place two (2) separated cars or cuts of cars to the same track.

Switching occurs when cars not arriving or leaving on your train are moved from one track to another.

Switching is not doubling one (1) track to another.

Switching is not setting out to two (2) tracks, or more, due to track size.

Recent Arbitration award permits bringing your train into Federal compliance.

Road crews may perform the following work in connection with their own trains without additional compensation:

a) Get or leave their train at any location within the initial and final terminals and handle their own switches. When a crew is required to report for duty or is relieved from duty at a point other than the on and off duty point fixed for that assignment and such point is not within reasonable walking distance of the on and off duty point, transportation will be provided.

b) Make up to three straight pick-ups at other location(s) in the initial terminal in addition to picking up the train and up to three straight set-outs at other location(s) in the final terminal in addition to yarding the train; and, in connection therewith, spot, pull, couple, or uncouple cars set out or picked up by them and reset any cars disturbed.

c) In connection with straight pick-ups and/or set-outs within switching limits at intermediate points where yard crews are on duty, spot, pull, couple or uncouple cars set out or picked up by them and reset any cars disturbed in connection therewith.

d) Perform switching within switching limits at times no yard crew is on duty. On carriers on which the provisions of Section 1 of Article V of the June 25, 1964 Agreement are applicable, time consumed in switching under this provision shall continue to be counted as switching time. Switching allowances, where applicable, under Article V, Section 7 of the June 25, 1964 Agreement or under individual railroad agreements, payable to road crews, shall continue with respect to employees whose seniority date in a craft covered by this Agreement precedes the date of this Agreement and such allowances are not subject to general or other wage increases.

e) At locations outside of switching limits there shall be no restrictions on holding onto cars in making set-outs or pick-ups, including coupling or shoving cars disturbed in making set-outs or pick-ups.

Questions & Answers from the 1985 National Agreement

Q In application of the provisions of Section 1(b) , of Article VIII, is there any limit to the couplings that road crews can be required to make when picking up cars ?

A The language "spot, pull, couple or uncouple cars set out or picked up by them and reset any cars disturbed " in Sections 1(b) and (c) of Article VIII was intended to apply to setting out and picking up cars and no limit is imposed on the number of couplings a crew may make when performing such work.

Q Train to be yarded in Track B of bowl yard makes a set-out at east yard, a set-out in Track A of the bowl yard, yards the balance of train in Track B, and then places caboose on the caboose track. Track B of the bowl yard would have held the balance of the train after the set-out at east yard. It is our understanding that the set-out in Track A of the bowl yard is a second set-out in the final terminal. Is this the correct interpretation of the rule?

A No.

Q Can we require an inbound crew to shove their set outs to a particular spot on the yard track, i.e. , to air hose or the bottom of the track?

A Yes.


PLB 3159 Aw 2, UTU v BN, Weston

"Carrier is authorized by the BLE May 13, 1971 National Agreement and UTU JANUARY 27, 1972 National Agreement to have members of a road freight engine crew attend to the final yarding of their train. ... Seven cars on the west lead were blocking progress to the designated track, Track 12. Claimants accordingly shoved those seven cars out of the way and onto Track no. 8. The fact that it was necessary to shove the cars a short distance on Track 7 in order to reach Track 8 from the west lead does not affect the conclusion that the shove was merely incidental to the yarding of the train."

PLB 872 Aw 10, UTU v BN (NP), Johnson

"A yard crew placed a cut of cars on the track over which Extra 225 West's road engine must pass to reach track 59, and without shoving them into the clear, returned to the yard to pick up another cut for switching. During the yard engine's absence the road crew of Extra 225 West arrived with their road engine and shoved the cut of cars into the clear so that they could move to track 59 and couple onto their train. The only rule cited by the employees is NP yardman's schedule rule 107(a), which provides that 'yardmen will do all yard, work train and transfer work within yard or switching limits.' However, numerous awards have held under various circumstances that the moving of cars out of the way to perform the assigned work of the crew is not extra or outside service. First Division Awards 7146, 12738, 13034, 15848, 16297, 17781, 19103; Award 739 of SBA 195; Award 71 of SBA 234; Award 7 of SBA 365; Award 47 of PLB 347; Award 7 of PLB 900."

PLB 2645 Aw 42, UTU v BN, Edwards

"...'alleging they had been improperly required to move three cars out of the way in order to spot their engine for fueling.' ...The service of yarding the train on the track in question, if so designated by the carrier, is not a violation. It is what service is required of the crew, taking it as a whole, that reveals whether or not there has been a violation."

SBA 195 Aw 739, UTU v GTW, Sempliner

"Claimants were instructed to turn their engine on the Penn Central Wye. On arrival at the Wye, they found three cars occupying the track which they were instructed to remove and place back on the wye when their engine was turned. Clearance of cars from a track to be used by the crew making the move, is not

switching, nor the performance of work for a foreign railroad. In the present instance, the claimants returned the cars to the wye when their engine was turned, thus restoring status quo. Claim denied"

PLB 1033 Aw 15, UTU v BN, Friedman

"However, First Division Award No. 15848 on the property denied a road crews claim, holding that moving cars to complete an assignment is permissible. Carrier also relies upon more recent awards, which have denied claims of this kind on the ground that a road crew is not performing yard service when it shoves cars in order to yard its train. ...In another switchman's case, Award No. 10 of PLB No. 170, the referee wrote that it had been 'repeatedly' held that a road crew is not performing yard service in shoving cars merely to yard its train. The claim there was denied, as it must be in this case."

1st Aw 16544, BLE v SP, Roll

"It seems clear from the record that the switch engine stationed on the tower track could not double rear of extra 6119 west because the crossover track was blocked. Therefore, it became necessary to clear the crossover so switch engine could perform the work assigned to it, which it did do after the crossover was cleared. Also, it seems clear that it was necessary for claimants engine to clear the crossover so the switch engine could double rear of train 6119 west is order for claimants to complete their assignment by yarding their train. While the movement for which claim is made was not strictly in connection with claimants own train, since the caboose and the three cars were a part of extra 6119, it cannot be said that the movement did not concern their own train. The movement of the caboose and the three cars was made in order that claimants could complete their assignment. So, the movement was to that extent in connection with their own train. The board is not persuaded that the movement performed by claimants was yard work within the scope of the yardman's agreement. Under all the facts of record, the claims must be denied."

Public Law Board No. 37, Award No. 53, BRT v BN (SLSF), Moore

"Claim of Engine Foreman C. E. Hughes, Jr. and crew for one day yard rate of pay, November 2, 1966 when instructed to make improper delivery to IC on President's Island. The facts involved herein reveal that this is not an interchange movement. These cars remained in the Frisco account during the entire period. The crew did not perform switching but moved the cars in order to clear a path for the crew to return to the Frisco yard. This movement is authorized by the January 17, 1957 agreement. Claim denied."

SBA 361, Award No. 348, BRT v. UP, Wyckoff.

"A Santa Fe yard crew engaged in interchange work at Los Angeles was handling a cut of cars from Santa Fe to Union Pacific. The Santa Fe engine failed after the cut of cars had been partially moved into the designated interchange track in the Union Pacific Yard. This left yard tracks blocked at Spence Street and lead tracks blocked at the entrance to the Carrier's "A" Yard. Claimant Union Pacific yard crew, also engaged in interchange work, had delivered a cut of cars in interchange to Santa Fe and were returning to Union Pacific Yard when they came upon the Santa Fe cut of cars blocking their movement to Union Pacific Yard. Claimant crew was instructed to couple into the rear end of the Santa Fe cut and shove same into clear. Claim was made by the Claimants alleging that they should be paid an additional day's pay for completing Santa Fe's interchange work. It is not established by the evidence of record that Claimant did anything more than shove enough to enable them to move. SBA No. 361 Award 73 requires a denial award. Claim denied."

PLB 2909, Award No. 67, UTU v. BN (Ritter)

"Upon reporting for duty, they found that their departure from Texline was restricted because the main line was blocked by FWD train V50 which had come in from the west and had been yarded on the main line because of extreme yard congestion. In order to depart, Claimants were required to pull Train V50 eastward into the Texline Yard until the main line at the west end of the yard was clear. Claimants then boarded their train and departed Texline for Trinidad. The Organization alleges that a C & S Crew performed switching at Texline for a foreign line carrier, and that therefore, this claim is compensable. The record discloses that there was no service performed for or on behalf of FWD; and

no rule violation is cited. Claimants merely moved the FWD Train for their on benefit in order that they could leave Texline for Trinidad. This was for their own benefit and no service was performed for the foreign line. Therefore, this Claim will be denied. AWARD: Claim denied."

PLB 717, Aw 51 & 52, UTU-T v BN, Criswell

Involves situations where foreign line yard crews making interchange deliveries experienced engine failure and it was necessary to have a Frisco Yard road crew shove the yard crew into the yard in order to clear their route. Denied

PLB 88, Aw 30, BRT vs DH, Hanlon

"The movement of the car in question was necessary to clear the track to enable claimant's crew to complete its interchange delivery and it is established that such a move, having served no purpose other than to facilitate the interchange delivery, is not compensable as claimed.

AWARD: Claim denied"

PLB 5410, Aw 12, UTU v BN, Twomey

"Before departing the terminal, Mr. Hudson and his engineer were instructed to take the engines assigned to them and turn them on the wye, so they would be headed in the proper direction for their road trip. Their way to the wye was blocked by five bad-ordered cars protruding from the Runt Track. They coupled into the five cars and shoved them some so 50 car lengths to clear up the wye. They then turned their engines and coupled into their train and left on their road trip. Conductor Hudson claimed a basic days pay for shoving the five cars out of the way in order to turn his engines on the wye, and proceed on their trip. In the instant case the crew did nothing more than shove the cars out of the way in order to turn their engines and then proceed on their road trip. Such is not station switching nor was it an improper move violative of any currently applicable agreement rule. The claim for a basic day is without agreement support and must be denied. AWARD: Claim denied."

Jay Schollmeyer

General Chairman


Can you send me a break down "that everybody can understand of what constitutes a payment for Y2, rode crews performing yard work?

Some of the questions being raised are-

Can an inbound crew at the final terminal double its head end over to another track to make up the outbound train if it has the same train symbol going outbound? Yes

Can the inbound crew cut off and grab another track and double back to their inbound train therefore making up the outbound train? Yes

Can an inbound crew double its head cars over to another track and tie onto cars and shove in the clear when there are clear tracks available? Yes

Can an inbound or outbound crew make more than one move yarding their train or putting their train together where switch crews are working and on duty? Yes, crews can make up to 3 moves set-out and/or pick-ups.

By can I'm meaning by doing it would it constitute a penalty?

I'm hearing a lot about incidental work and tracks being added to an inbound train by the inbound crew because those cars are part of the train, beings that the train symbol doesn't change. Yes, same as above

Also if a road crew is called [not dogcatch service] for a train and leaves initial terminal with the train and down the road they are instructed to tie train down and retrieve a train that is heading back to their initial terminal that should be another days pay right? If so what agreement is that? If the crew is called for straight away service, I would argue the crew is entitled to a new day.
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 2:13 pm

Return to Trainmen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest