The Employes do not allege that they have the right to sell tickets for train 115 which arrives at Columbus in the early morning hours, and they make no distinction between the exclusive right to sell tickets for the early morning train and the evening train. Such a practice of not having an employe under the Telegraphers' agreement on duty for this early morning train has been in effect with the full knowledge of the Claimants and without protest for many years, during which time the current agreement has been revised in many respects. The Employes also show no necessity for the ticket agent to be called back for the evening train. No telegraphing service is necessary.
The Employes have not shown that the operator at Columbus has the exclusive right to sell tickets a that location. They have not shown that the agreement was violated when an employe under the Clerks' agreement is permitted to sell a trivial number of tickets and check baggage after the operator's regularly assigned hours.
The Clerks' agreement provides that employes covered by that agreement may sell passenger train tickets and, of course, check necessary baggage. There is certainly no contractual requirement under the Operators' agreement that the employe under that agreement at Columbus, Mississippi, be called back to work on an overtime basis to sell tickets and check baggage, and such work may be properly performed by an employe under the Clerks' agreement who is on duty at the time the few patrons call for their tickets.
OPINION OF BOARD: At Columbus, Mississippi, the Carrier maintains a passenger station and, either a block away or in the same block but in a separate building, a freight office. Only one passenger train passes through Columbus each day at 5:41 A. M. and at 7:50 P. M.
The work in dispute is selling tickets, checking baggage and receiving the arrival time of the train over the telephone from the Train Dispatcher for the purpose of posting it on the station bulletin board, all in connection with the arrival of the passenger train at 7:50 P. M. Apparently no one ever gets on or off this train at 5:41 A. M.; but if they do, the work in dispute here is not among the services accorded to them at this station.
The work in dispute has been performed by the Telegraphers for 30 years, the detail of which is shown in the joint submission. Effective October 1, 1949 a Clerk outside the Agreement in the freight station has been assigned this work within the regular hours of his week-day assignment; and he has been given a call to perform the work on Saturday and Sunday. This reassignment has deprived the Ticket Agent-Operator of a call which that 5281-13 1028
position has been performing since 1939 outside its regular assigned hours of 7A.M.to4P.M.
It does not appear that the new assignment was actuated by any change in the amount or nature of the work required. The substance of what has happened is that before the establishment of the 40-hour week the work was performed entirely by calls on an employe under the Telegraphers' Agreement, whereas now it is performed five days during the regular assigned hours of a Clerk outside the Telegraphers' Agreement and during his two rest days by calls.
FIRST: It is clear that receiving the arrival time of the train over the telephone from the Train Dispatcher, for the purpose of posting it on the bulletin board, was exclusively telegraphers' work. It was "telephoning in connection with the movement of trains" within the meaning of the Scope Rule, Article 1 (c), which in terms provides that such work can be performed only by those covered by the Agreement (Award 3900).
SECOND: The rest of the work in dispute-selling tickets, checking baggage, marking up the bulletin board and other related work in connection with the arrival and departure of the train-is technically clerk's work. But it has been long and firmly established that most employes of a carrier of necessity perform some clerical work in connection with their regular assigned duties, and that telegraphers with telegraphic duties to perform have the right to perform clerical duties to the extent necessary to fill out their time, provided the clerical duties are incidental to, or in proximity with, their work as a telegrapher (Awards 615, 636, 4559 and 4734; compare Awards 4288, 4867, 5014, 5024 and 5110).
THIRD: It is true that, since the rest of the clerical work in dispute had to be performed outside of the Claimant's regular assigned hours, it was neither "necessary to fill out his time" nor was it in as close proximity to his work as to that of a Clerk on duty in the freight station.
However, the Claimant was exclusively entitled to perform the work of receiving the arrival time of the train over the telephone from the Train Dispatcher, and so he was entitled to a call for that purpose in preference to one working in a different craft. This being the case, he would be in closer proximity to the rest of the work than the Clerk and so should have been permitted to fill out his time during the call by performing all of the work in connection with the arrival and departure of the train.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respec tively Carrier and Employes 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
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Interpretation No. 1 to Award No. 5281
Docket No. TE-5227
Upon application of the Carrier involved in the above Award, that this Division interpret the same in the light of the dispute between the parties as to its meaning and application, as provided for in Sec. 3, First (m) of the Railway Labor Act, approved Tune 21, 1934, the following interpretation is made:
The application is based upon the claim that the Clerk outside the Agreement, who was given the call, did not in fact perform any communications work during the calls; and the application is accompanied by affidavits to this effect.
While the submission is joint, the parties submitted separate statements of fact. In considering these statements, we concluded that a conflict existed, which we resolved in favor of the Claimant.
The Employes' statement averred that communications work was performed during the call. While the Carrier denied that this was so during the Clerk's occupancy of the call, the denial was not categorical for it was accompanied by what we considered to be an admission that the Clerk may have performed some communications work.
Communications work was a duty of the Ticket Agent-Operator position; and the call was a call to perform the work of that position. To say that the Clerk never did perform communications work is not to say that the obligation to do so did not exist should the occasion arise. In this view, assuming that we have authority to consider the affidavits submitted with this application, they would not alter the ultimate conclusion reached in the Award.
Referee Hubert Wyckoff, who sat with the Division as a member when Award No. 5281 was adopted, also participated with the Division in making this interpretation.