Writing an arbitration award 458
Proceedings Before Arbitration Board No. And, further, even if it were appropriate to now have this clear and concise language adjudged to be latently ambiguous, on the basis of recollections of two individuals that participated in the negotiations of the UTU Agreement, problems abound with respect to the evidentiary weight to be afforded these statements, and whether or not they may be applied as parol evidence as to the meaning of a provision of a BLE Arbitration Award, which was released almost a year after the UTU negotiations concluded.
Twomey "confirmed", in Awards Nos. The Dissenters first complain the Majority "chose to ignore" previous Public Law Board Awards they thought should have brought them a different result.
The Organization argued in this case, and the Majority agreed, that even if ambiguity did exist, it was to practice, rather than a "bit of bargaining history", that we should look as the evidence of the parties' intent, and that there had been no disagreement as to the proper application of the Agreement to the instant claim as shown by the unbroken pattern of payment of such claims for not less than 30 months after the Agreement language the Carrier relied upon arose.
On carriers on which the provisions of Section 1 of Article V of the June 25, Agreement are applicable, time consumed under this provision shall continue to be counted as switching time. On December 29,Arbitration Board No. This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
And that is the way the parties to the Award applied the Award and Agreement for 30 months following its release. A reading of Award No.
Writing an arbitration award 458
Switching service in yards by road crews when yard crew is not on duty, as a result of discontinuance of yard crew assignment pursuant to Section 1 hereof, shall be paid for on the minute basis, with a minimum of one 1 hour at the appropriate yard rate. Award 30 stated: "This Board must interpret the Agreement language as written. Mangum for Code 15 switching allowances for time switching at Goldsboro Yard during the first twelve hour period of the discontinued last yard engine while regularly assigned to train no. A National Rule cannot mean one thing on all of the nation's railroads, and mean just the opposite on one, regardless of the desirability of so novel a concept by the Dissenters. The claim in this docket is representative of identical claims that are being held in abeyance by agreement of the parties. See, e. Both versions have now been interpreted by several arbitration tribunals, and each, upon considering the merits of the positions studied by this Board in reaching Award No. The negotiators did not write in such a limitation and this Board has no authority to do so now under the guise of contract interpretation. In doing so, the Board imposed the New York Dock [4] labor protection conditions as required by 49 U.For good reasons, as we will briefly point out below, they were rejected. Biedenharn, Jr. Mangum for Code 15 switching allowances for time switching at Goldsboro Yard during the first twelve hour period of the discontinued last yard engine while regularly assigned to train no.
PLB determined that "latent ambiguity" was present in the contract provision it was reviewing, and proceeded to resolve this ambiguity on the basis of limited parol evidence in the exclusive form of recollections of two individuals, present at the negotiations, made in statements prepared sometime after the date of the Agreement - one in and the other in