To Officers and Members
All Lodges, B. of L.F. and E.
Northern Pacific Railway
Dear Sirs and Brothers:
The following is report of the cases handled for quarter ending December 31, 1930 [abridged]:
CLAIMS OF ENGINEERS KOHL AND PETERSON, LAKE SUPERIOR DIVISION.
Engineers Kohl and Peterson were the senior available demoted engineers at Brainerd on various dates during 1929 when a temporary vacancy on the shop locomotive at that point was filled by one of the shop employe[e]s instead of using the senior available demoted engineer. Claim was presented for the difference in pay and it was the contention of the Committee that under the provisions of Supplement 23 to General Order 27 and Rule 54(d) of Engineer's and Firemen's Schedules, that past practice of using an engineer to fill temporary vacancies on the Brainerd shop job should be continued and that roundhouse employe[e]s have no rights to this service. On account of being unable to reach a satisfactory settlement with the Management, this claim was referred to the Western Train Service Board and the following decision has been rendered sustaining the claims of Engineers Kohl and Peterson:
''In the opinion of the Board there should be no change in the practice of filling temporary vacancies for men operating this dinky engine since 1923, and the Board so decides. Claims before the Board should be disposed of accordingly.'' [p. 1]
CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCE TO PASSENGER CREWS, LAKE SUPERIOR DIVISION.
Passenger crews arriving at Minneapolis Passenger Station were allowed 30 minutes handling their train between passenger station and coach yard and three miles for handling their engine from the coach yard to roundhouse tracks at Northtown. It was the contention of the Committee that three miles did not represent the correct distance from the coach yard to the point where engine crews are relieved at Northtown. This question has been handled with the General Officers and an allowance of 3.8 miles has been provided, which represents the actual distance from the coach yard to the point where crew is relieved on roundhouse track at Northtown. [p. 2]
CLAIM OF SOO LINE ENGINEERS AND FIREMEN FOR ASSIGNMENT TO HILL AVENUE ORE DOCK SUPERIOR, LAKE SUPERIOR DIVISION.
Under agreement between the Northern Pacific and Soo Line Railroads the ore of both companies was handled on the Northern Pacific ore dock at Hill Avenue, the expense being borne jointly by the two railroads and the Soo Line ore dock being abandoned under this arrangement. Claim was made by Soo Line engineers and firemen for assignment of crews to the Hill Avenue Ore Dock in proportion to the amount of Soo Line ore that was being handled on the ore dock. An appeal was presented to the Grand Lodge of the two Organizations and as result of investigation it was recommended that the work of handling ore on the ore dock at Hill Avenue be divided between the men of the two companies on a 50-50 basis, which arrangement became effective September 16, 1930. [p. 3]
REQUEST FORE REINSTATEMENT OF FIREMAN ANDERSON, FIRST DISTRICT OF FARGO DIVISION.
Fireman Anderson was dismissed from service as result of investigation held November 27, 1929, in connection with having in his possession property belonging to the Northern Pacific Railway, he having admitted having taken home a small quantity of waste and oil. This case was handled on a leniency basis with the General Officers of the Mechanical and Operating Departments, who have refused to reconsider this man's reinstatement. [p. 4]
CLAIM OF ENGINEER SURFACE AND FIREMAN HAMMERAL, YELLOWSTONE DIVISION.
This crew was assigned to chain gang freight service between Mandan and Dickinson and on March 9, 1928, after being called for Extra 1857 East, this crew was required to go to the west end of Dickinson yard and pull in Extra 1857 that was tied up under the Hours of Service Law, placing this engine on the roundhouse track to be supplied and later using this same engine on their trip from Dickinson East. Claim was presented for 100 miles for service performed prior to beginning trip for which called. On account of being unable to reach a satisfactory settlement with the Management this claim was referred to the [Western] Train Service Board and the following decision has been rendered:
''Without prejudice to the proper application of Rule 62 the Board decides that this particular claim is denied.'' [pp. 4-5]
CLAIM OF FIREMAN JONES, MONTANA DIVISION.
Fireman Jones was on Train No. 4 January 21, 1927, between Livingston and Butte with Engine 2238. An investigation was held by Superintendent on January 24, to determine the responsibility for delay of two hours and 20 minutes account low steam pressure on Engine 2238 on January 21. As a result of this investigation, Fireman Jones and his engineer were given an actual suspension of ten days and barred from passenger service. Claim was presented for time lost and removal of discipline on the grounds that Fireman Jones was not responsible for the delay on Train No. 4 on the date in question. On account of unable to reach a satisfactory settlement with the Management, this claim was referred to the [Western] Train Service Board and decision has been rendered denying the claim. [p. 5]
CLAIM OF ENGINEER SMITH AND FIREMAN, MONTANA DIVISION.
This crew was assigned to local freight service handling Trains 821 and 822 between Helena and Bozeman, distance 98 miles. This assignment also includes trip to Anceney, a distance of 15.2 miles. Under Agreement in effect covering this assignment, overtime is figured on a basis of the mileage between Helena and Bozeman, except on days that trip is made to Anceney. On February 25, 1929, this crew made a side trip on the Anceney Branch as far as Amsterdam, a distance of seven miles. In figuring time on this trip, the Company used the mileage to Anceney. Claim was made that the side trip from Manhattan to Amsterdam on this date was not a part of the assignment, inasmuch as the crew did not go to Anceney, and that this should be considered as a side trip and paid for in accordance with the provisions of Rule 70. On account of being unable to reach a satisfactory settlement with the Management, this case was referred to the [Western] Train Service Board and the claim has been sustained. [p. 5]
REQUEST THAT RAIN ORDERS BE DELIVERED AT CAB WINDOW, MONTANA DIVISION.
The question of having operators supplied with long handled train order hoops so that orders can be delivered at the cab window instead of at the gangway has been before the Management for some time. It appears that long handled train order hoops have now been adopted as standard and that these hoops will be in use on all divisions within a short period of time as indicated in letter from the General Manager December 24, 1930, reading in part as follows:
''Our standard has been changed from the short to the long handled hoops, and it is our intention to use them as soon as our present supply of the short hoops, which will last about thirty days, is exhausted, which should take care of the matter on the Montana as well as other divisions.'' [p. 6]
REQUEST THAT ICE BE FURNISHED FOR ENGINEMEN, MONTANA DIVISION.
This request has been before the General Officers since September 1929, account of the ice not being maintained in a convenient location at this point for a great many years. It appears that this matter will now be satisfactorily taken care of in accordance with letter from the General Manager under date of September 29, 1930, as follows:
''I have your letter of September 18, with reference to maintaining an ice house for enginemen at Livingston at a convenient location.''
''We are arranging to provide an ice house adjacent to the east roundhouse lead for this purpose.'' [p. 6]
CLAIM OF ENGINEER GIES AND FIREMEN GOHEEN, ROCKY MOUNTAIN DIVISION.
Engineer Gies and Fireman Goheen were assigned to pusher service out of Garrison and on May 27, 1929, assisted an extra east from Garrison to Blossburg, distance 30.3 miles. Returning light from Blossburg, this crew picked up a pusher engine at Bradley, the crew being tied up under the Law, and towed it to Garrison. Claim was made for 100 miles additional payment under Rule 32(c) on account of performing other than pusher service, not in connection with train being assisted. On account of being unable to reach a satisfactory settlement with the Management, this case was referred to the [Western] Train Service Board and the following decision has been rendered:
''In view of the facts and circumstances and without prejudice of the rules, this particular claim is denied.'' [pp. 7-8]
CLAIM OF ENGINEER TEUFEL, ROCKY MOUNTAIN DIVISION.
On February 26, 1929, Engineer Teufel was used in helper service from Wallace to Lookout, distance 18.8 miles assisting Train No. 842. At Morning, the engine in charge of Engineer Teufel was uncoupled from train and was used to spot two loads that had been set out the previous day by Train 841 and also attempted to rerail an empty car off the track at that point. Claim was made for local freight rate of pay for this engineer, under the provisions of Rule 29(b), because of station switching performed by this helper engine at Morning. On account of being unable to reach an agreement with the Management, this case was referred to the [Western] Train Service Board and the following decision has been rendered sustaining the claim. [p. 8]
CLAIM OF ENGINEER ZOELLER AND FIREMAN, ROCKY MOUNTAIN DIVISION.
This crew was assigned to Trains 287 and 288 operating on turnaround basis under the 'Eight within Ten Hour' rule between Butte and Garrison. In order to deduct two hours from time both engineer and fireman at the turning point, the engineer and fireman were instructed to divide the watching time. Claim was made for continuous time payment to both the engineer and fireman on the grounds that the practice put into effect was in violation of the short turnaround rule. In view of Decision No. 3891 of the [Western] Train Service Board covering case of Fireman Mehegan and Decision No. 3892 of the [Western] Train Service Board covering case of Engineer Gilman, the claim of Engineer Zoeller and Fireman for service performed at Garrison has been allowed by the General Officers. [p. 9]
CLAIM OF FIREMAN SPEARS, ROCKY MOUNTAIN DIVISION.
On October 3, 1927, the engine crew caller at Missoula reported to the officer in charge that he was unable to located Fireman Spears for an extra west due to leave Missoula at 12:30 P.M., engine crew on duty 11:45 A.M., and that he was then instructed to call an extra fireman. It was the contention of the Committee that on the date in question, Fireman Spears was at home at 10:30 A.M. and on leaving his residence about 11:00 A.M., he had pinned a notice on the door in accordance with local instructions advising that he had gone uptown and would be back soon. The caller contended that he was at Spears' residence at 10:30 A.M. and seeing the note pinned on the door and failing to locate Spears downtown, he went back to Spears' residence at 11:00 A.M. and in a further effort to call him but he was not at home. On account of being unable to reach an agreement with the Management, this case was referred to the [Western] Train Service Board and the following decision has been rendered that the claim is not sustained under the schedule Rule 67. [p. 10]
CLAIM OF ENGINEERS AND FIREMEN, IDAHO DIVISION.
Engineers and firemen in passenger service between Lewiston and Grangeville have been allowed ten constructive miles under special agreement since 1917. Under date of March 11, 1929, Manager Hanrahan of the Camas Prairie Railroad advised the two General Chairmen that effective April 1, 1929, the allowance of ten constructive miles to passenger engineers and firemen between Sweetwater and Reubens would be reduced to six constructive miles and that the ten constructive miles previously allowed was an erroneous payment and never intended to apply to passenger service, On account of being unable to reach a satisfactory settlement with the Management, this case was referred to the Western Train Service Board and the contention of the Committees covering allowance of ten constructive miles to passenger crews between these points has been sustained. [p. 10]
CLAIM OF ENGINEER SMITH AND FIREMAN YOUNG, IDAHO DIVISION.
This crew was used on Farm Marketing Special and claim was made for local rate instead of through freight rate for service performed in connection with handling this train May 27, 29, and 28, 1929. This crew tied up at various points on the Idaho Division and were paid on continuous time basis. The Committee contended that during the course of this continuous trip this crew was required to set out and pick up cars at four points en route and that local freight rates should apply to this continuous trip in accordance with provision of Rule 29(b). This claim was referred to the [Western] Train Service Board by the Conductors Committee and claim sustained, this decision also being applied to the claim of Engineer Smith and Fireman Young. [p. 11]
CLAIM OF FIREMEN PERKINS AND CRAIG, IDAHO DIVISION.
These firemen were used for extra passenger service on steam locomotive taking place of gas-electric car and operating between Spokane and Paradise. The lay over on this assignment at Paradise was 24 hours and claim was made for payment under the provisions of Rule 80 on the grounds that there was no assignment for a fireman on those runs, until this job was bulletined for firemen, On account of being unable to reach a satisfactory settlement, this case was referred to the [Western] Train Service Board and the following decision has been rendered sustaining these claims. [p. 11]
CLAIM OF ENGINEER PRALL AND FIREMAN SCHLAGEL, PASCO DIVISION.
This crew was occupying a pusher assignment out of Parkwater and on September 1, 1930, was required to return from Spokane to Parkwater where they left their pusher engine and took Engine 2436 to Cheney to change engines with crew assigned to Trains 877 and 878, returned with engine 2408 helping Extra 1782 Hangman to Spokane. Claim was presented for an additional 100 miles under Rule 32(c) on the grounds that the service required was other than pusher service not in connection with train being assisted. Claim has been allowed by the General Officers. [pp. 11-12]
CLAIM OF ENGINEERS ENGLISH AND PRINCE AND FIREMEN REUDE AND BEATTIE, SEATTLE DIVISION.
These crews were assigned to freight helper service out of Easton and during January 1928 freight helper crews assigned to service out of Lester were run to Easton and used to assist freight trains out of that point, when these helper crews were available. It was the contention of the Committee that freight helper crews assigned out of Easton were entitled to their service of assisting freight trains up the east side of the mountain and that on dates in question, there was no emergency requiring the use of Lester freight helper crews out of Easton. It was the contention of the Railway Company that the helper district extends between Lester and Easton and there was no violation of the rules in using a freight helper crew from Lester to assist a train out of Easton, similar to the operation of passenger helper. On account of being unable to reach an agreement with the Management, this case was referred to the [Western] Train Service Board and the following decision has been rendered:
''The evidence indicated that it has been the practice to confine freight helper crews to trains out of their assigned tie up points except in emergencies. The Board is of the opinion that the facts and circumstances in this case deny the claim, and so decides.'' [p. 12]
CLAIM OF ENGINEER EWING AND FIREMAN CUNNINGHAM, SEATTLE DIVISION.
This crew was called at Auburn for extra transfer service June 2, 1929, running caboose hop Auburn to Seattle handling circus train from Seattle to Tacoma, then handling a drag freight of cars to Auburn. Claim was submitted for 150 miles under circus train rule account of handling this circus from Seattle to Tacoma and 100 miles transfer rate for the movement from Tacoma to Auburn. This claim being denied by Local Officers. It was the contention of the Committee that the claim was sustained under the provisions of Rule 41. The Company contended that inasmuch as this crew did not load or unload the circus at Tacoma, they were not entitled to payment under circus train rule as this constituted a through freight movement. On account of being unable to reach an agreement with the Management, this case was referred to the [Western] Train Service Board and the following decision has been rendered denying the claim. [p. 13]
CLAIM OF FIREMAN MEHEGAN, TACOMA DIVISION.
Fireman Mehegan was assigned to short turnaround passenger service between Tacoma and Kanaskat, with home terminal at Tacoma. Where was a layover of six hours between trains at Kanaskat and prior to March 20, 1929, the fireman was paid continuous time on account of being required to watch engine during the interval of release at Kanaskat. Instructions were issued that effective March 20, the fireman would be relieved from watching the engine for two hours and this service would be performed by the engineer. Claim was made for continuous time on the grounds that it had been practice to require the fireman to care for the engine during release period and that it was contrary to the intent of the short turnaround passenger rule to divide this time between engineer and firemen in order to avoid payment for this service. On account of being unable to reach an agreement with the Management, this case was referred to the Western Train Service Board and the following decision has been rendered sustaining the claim:
''In the opinion of the Board it was not the intent of rules to be applied so as to permit an aggregate deduction of in excess of two hours under the 'Eight within Ten Hour' rule. The Board therefore decides that while the Company is privileged to assign anyone to act as watchman, if either fireman or engineer is used to act in lieu of a watchman, such employe[e] should be paid on continuous time basis under such rule. Claim in this case is therefore sustained.'' [p. 14]
CLAIM OF FIREMEN ON EXTRA LIST, TACOMA DIVISION.
A regular work train assignment was tying up at Orting, 17 miles from Tacoma. On January 10, 1928, after crew tied up the engine was derailed by the watchman. An effort was made to locate the work train crew, but this crew had left for Tacoma by automobile. An extra crew with wrecking outfit was sent from Tacoma to rerail this engine. The engine was damaged to the extent that it was necessary to run another engine out of Tacoma and for this work train on January 11, and the regular work train engineer and fireman, who were at Tacoma were called to handle this light engine from Tacoma to Orting. Eleven firemen on the Tacoma extra board presented claim for run-around payment on the grounds that this work train crew had tied up at Orting and should not have been considered available for service out of Tacoma. On account of being unable to reach a satisfactory settlement with the Management, this case was referred to the [Western] Train Service Board and the following decision has been rendered denying the claim. [pp. 15-16]
CLAIM OF FIREMAN LEAVENS, TACOMA DIVISION.
Fireman Leavens was assigned to locomotive operating weed burner machine and the requirements of the service made it necessary to blow out locomotive flues at the end of the day's work. Engineers or firemen performing this service were paid at pro rata rate in addition to time consumed in work train service during May and June 1928. Fireman Leavens presented claim for this service at time and one half rate, which was denied by the Superintendent under date of July 17, 1928. On July 29, 1928, Fireman Leavens submitted time slip claiming 100 miles at unclassified rate in addition to work train day for each date upon which service of blowing out flues was performed. It was the contention of the Committee that there is no rule in the schedule that would require firemen to perform service of this character and on days that this fireman was required to blow out flues after arrival at terminal, he should receive not less than a minimum day at the rate applying to unclassified service in addition to his work train day. On account of being unable to reach an agreement with the Management, this case was referred to the [Western] Train Service Board and the following decision has been rendered:
''There being no rule in the Firemen's agreement covering this class of service, the Board is of the opinion that if firemen are to be used for this service a rule should be negotiated to cover, and so decides.'' [p. 16]
General Chairman, B. of L.F. and E.
Northern Pacific Railway
Correspondence: Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen Green
River Lodge No. 895 Collection, White River Valley Museum, Auburn,
Author: John A. Phillips, III. Title: The Hardest Years, Part I.