does not apply to men who are notified before going home that they will be required to work after regular hours."

As stated above, in none of these instances was the train order relayed to a conductor at Bridgeville telegraph office. They were all at outlying side tracks, some distance from the telegraph office, and even had the Railway Company called out the agent-telegrapher at Bridgeville, it still would have been necessary for him to have relayed the train order to the train conductor. The only change would have been that it would have shortened the distance to the relay point.

Inasmuch as the train orders in question were not delivered or received at Bridgeville telegraph station, certainly no one was entitled to a call at this point to handle them. The claim of the Employes in each instance is for calls under Article III (c), which obviously is not proper, and the claims should be denied.

We would also like to point out Award No. 4259 which is a similar case. In this case a conductor copied train orders at a "blind siding" directly from the train dispatcher. This claim was denied. In the instant case the side tracks are "blind side tracks", that is, points at which no telegrapher is or has ever been stationed.

(Exhibits Not Reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: The facts, which are not disputed, and the claim premised thereon and on the scheduled rules raises the issue of whether or not it is a violation of the Telegraphers' Scope Rule for a conductor, not a member of the Organization, to receive train orders transmitted to him by a telegrapher when (a) the conductor is at a station where there is an assigned operator but who is not on duty at the time and (b) when the conductor is at a point within the switching limit of the station but at a considerable distance from the station where there is an assigned operator not on duty.

The Scope rule, set forth in the submission, does not by its terms define the work of Telegraphers. The Organization in its submission says the " ' "'* Scope Rules of this Organization are general in character and fall within the type of Scope Rules where tradition, historical practice and custom define the work covered "' ." It is then added y the Organization that, by "custom" and "practice" the work of Telegraphers encompasses the "transmission and reception of messages, orders reports and other communication of record." To this generalization there is no dispute by the Carrier.

Further, it has long been accepted that the transmission of train orders was the work of Telegraphers. This includes the "receiving" as well as "sending" of train orders.

The instant claim, insofar as it relates to the messages of record received by the conductor at the Bridgeville Station, does not vary in its essentials from the claims arising at Oxford, Sherburne and Baldwinsville and considered by the Division in its Award 4516; and on the authority of that Award the claims based on a call from the station should be sustained.

It appears from the docket that a substantial portion of the claims is based on the fact that the conductor received train orders by phone at points removed a considerable distance from the station, but all within the switching limits of the Bridgeville Station. The conductor did not call the Bridgeville operator but received his train orders from an operator at another and nearest open station where a telegrapher was on duty.

In its Opinion to Award 4516, Referee Carter assisting, the Board said, in part:

"Where a Telegrapher's position is required and has been assigned to a station, a section foreman or others requiring a train line-up

who is working in proximity thereto, can properly obtain it from the operator. That he can obtain it by calling in person or by the use of the telephone is hardly subject to question. This for the reason that the use of the telephone under such circumstances is a substitute for a personal trip on his part and in no sense of the word is in lieu of work traditionally performed by a Telegrapher. But if the Telegrapher is not on duty, such fact does not authorize one not under the Agreement to perform the work traditionally belonging to the Telegrapher. It does not authorize him to call the dispatcher or some other station for the reason that he could not have done so formerly except by using the telegraph. In other words, when an employe not under the Telegraphers' Agreement uses the telephone under such circumstances, he is impinging upon work which traditionally belonged to Telegraphers.'

The Carrier asserts that it has been the common practice for conductors to receive and copy train orders by phone from the dispatcher or operator. This is the same contention as made in Docket TE-3489 (Award 3521); and, as the Board said in its Opinion in that case, "This does not defeat an affirmative award * * * , but does place the parties under the rule announced in Award 3518, Docket CL-3466, with reference to its retroactive effect."

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the paries 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 Employe involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

That the Agreement was violated.

AWARD Claim sustained.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Third Division