Award Number 3116
Docket Number TE-3093
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Luther W. Youngdahl, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS
THE DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA & WESTERN RAILROAD CO.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of The Order
of Railroad Telegraphers on '1 'he Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad,
that the first trick Clerk-Operator, O. L. Chadwick, at Norwich, New York, be
paid a "call" for April 19 and 29 and May 3, 4, 5 and 11, 1944, account a signal
maintainer not under the Telegraphers' Agreement securing a line-up similar
to a train order at Norwich direct from the train dispatcher on the morning of
each of these days by means of the telephone before the said first trick Clerk
Operator, O. L. Chadwick, came on duty.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: An agreement by and between
the parties bearing effective date of May 1, 1940, is in evidence; copies thereof
are on file with the National Railroad Adjustment Board.
Prior to April 1, 1944, twenty-four (24) hour telegraph service was maintained at Norwich, New York. By company bulletin No. 1148, dated March 31,
1944, the third trick Clerk-Operator position, 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., was abolished,
effective April 1, 1944. Thereafter telegraph service was maintained 7 a.m. to
11
P.M.
only
On April 19 and 29 and May 3, 4, 5 and 11, 1944, train line-ups were transmitted directly from the train dispatcher to signal maintainers (persons not
under the Telegraphers' Agreement) at Norwich around six o'clock each
morning just prior to the comencing time of the first trick Clerk-Operator
assigned.
The claimant, Mr. Chadwick, maintains a telephone in his home, has complied with Operating Rule No. 743, and was available for "call" service on each
of the dates involved.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES:
As indicated in the Employes' Statement of
Facts, prior to April 1, 1944, twenty-four (24) hour telegraph service was
maintained at Norwich. Effective April 1, 1944, the third trick Clerk-Operator
position, which position had theretofore been assigned to handle all telegraph
(telegraph and telephone synonymous) communications, was abolished by the
Carrier.
Following are the train line-ups which were transmitted by train dispatchers to signal maintainers at Norwich on. the dates involved in the claim:
[1507
3116-16
165
Other Organizations:
196 405, 481, 615, 635, 782, 806, 877, 890, 947,
948, 1038, 1050, 1116, 1134, 1149, 1217, 1383, 1405, 1406, 1418, 1435,
1458, 1484, 1519, 1554, 1593, 1656, 1694, 1695, 1708, 1841, 1849, 1894,
1991, 1999, 2010, 2011, 2041, 2042, 2089, 2090, 2091, 2121, 2133, 2134,
2138, 2145, 2326, 2334, 2350, 2351, 2353, 2375, 2379, 2449, 2492, 2493,
2548, 2551, 2552, 2576, 2597, 2685, 2693, 2641, 2674, 2676, 2735.
The claim should be denied.
OPINION OF BOARD:
This is a companion case to TE-3089, Award No.
3114. Although this case involves train line-ups and not train orders as in
3089, what we there said with reference to the work of copying train orders by
employes not within the agreement, applies with equal force here in connection
with the recording of train line-ups.
There is the additional circumstance in this case, however, that there
was discussion on the property with reference to the question of whether there
-was a violation of the Agreement. On appeal to the Chief Operating Officer,
Carrier's decision was as follows:
"As advised you at conference April 13 arrangements had been made
whereby M. of W. employes will obtain information regarding train
movements through employes covered by the Scope of the Telegraphers' Agreement except in a possible emergency that cannot be
anticipated and other arrangements made."
In dealing with the same subject matter at other locations, Carrier seems
to have conceded that this work belongs to employes covered by the scope of
the Agreement as is indicated by several communications issued by Superintendent Diegtel and Chief Train Dispatcher O'Boyle which are set forth in
detail in Employes' Exports Submission.
The letter of Superintendent Diegtel to the General Chairman, O.R.T. is
particularly significant. It reads:
"Referring to your letter of January 7, 1945, with reference to
our conference of March 13 regarding the handling of track car lineups at Danville, Bloomsburg, Berwick, Shickshinny, Kingsley, North
Brookfield, Oxford, Greene, Whitney Point and Marathon.
"The general practice of permitting maintenance of way employes
to obtain line-ups through other than the regular station forces within
the scope of the telegraphers' agreement is not authorized.
"At the conference I advised you that immediately action would
be taken at certain of these stations. Further investigation of the
others has now been completed, and track car operators at all of the
stations mentioned above now have definite instructions to secure their
line-ups from regular station forces. It should be understood, however, that the occasional use of the telephone by section or extra gang
foremen in emergency to obtain instructions and information concerning their work does not constitute a violation of the intent of your
agreement.
Claimant maintained a telephone in his home, and was available for the
call on the dates specified in the claim.
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving
the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole
record and all the evidence, finds and holds: -
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act,
as approved June 21, 1934;
311x-17
166
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein; and
That Carrier violated the Agreement.
AWARD
Claim sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST: H. A. Johnson
Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 1st day of February, 1946.