"The matter involved in these paragraphs is a 'Form M' which the Organization contends is a train order while the Carrier names it a 'Motor Car Permit'. It is issued by 'Signalmen' (telegraphers) to operators of track motor cars, particularly section foremen, authorizing the motor car to use a main track. When the telegrapher himself signs the permit and gives it to the track-car operator, the Organization is satisfied that the Train Order Rule is being observed. The objection arises when a track-car operator telephones in to the telegrapher asking permission to use the track to return to his home station. When this permission is given by phone, the operator fills in the form and signs the telegrapher's name.

This securing of permission by telephone, as well as the notification a car operator gives to the telegrapher by phone that he has cleared the track by taking the car off, the Organization considers handling train orders. It claims this is exclusively telegraphers' work and if it is done by section foremen or other operators of motor cars where no telegrapher is employed, the senior idle employe under the agreement should be allowed a day's pay for each occasion when the telephone is so used. Obviously, the Carrier could not have a telegrapher on every track ear, and the Organization does not ask this. It would merely impose a penalty which the Carrier would be unable to avoid." (Emphasis added.)

The Board definitely denied the rule requested by the Employes under which a senior idle employe could claim a day's pay for each occasion on which a person other than a telegrapher performed "the duties of operating a block by the use of the telephone, governing the movements of trains and/or motor cars", this language being quoted from Section (a) of the Employes' Claim in this case.

Carrier therefore maintains that the issue involved in this case was before the Board of Arbitration, was denied by said Board and must be denied by the National Railroad Adjustment Board.

5. ISSUE HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF AND CLAIM SHOULD BE DENIED.

Inasmuch as the issue has been disposed of by the Board of Arbitration and the awarded scope rule has been in effect since July 1, 1948, it is clearly apparent that the request of the Employes in Section (c) of the claim cannot be considered by the Adjustment Board. Section (c) demands that "if the Carrier elects to continue this practice, the work of blocking track motor cars shall be assigned to and performed by employes covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement". If the Adjustment Board were to sustain the claim its award would clash head-on with the award of the Board of Arbitration. The Adjustment Board can therefore do nothing else but deny this claim, just as it denied the claim of the Employes in Docket TE-3984, which involved an issue that had many similar aspects. Award No. 4050 in that case denied the claim of our Line East Telegraphers that "communications service" at Wayneport Coaling Plant belonged exclusively to telegraphers. In that case Referee Fox definitely indicated that there is no impropriety in handling "telephone communications of record" through telgraphers. This is exactly what is being done in the instant case.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: This claim based on alleged violation of the Telegraphers' Agreement effective January 1 1940 involves no money. The Agreement in question having been superseded by the Agreement effective July 1, 1948, the Board finds no necessity to interpret the provisions of an Agreement that was terminated by the action of the parties. The case should be dismissed.

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 case will be dismissed in accordance with the Opinion.

AWARD