NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Francis J. Robertson, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS
THE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY
(Chesapeake District)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the General Committee of The Order
of Railroad Telegraphers on the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway,
(1) That agent-operator H. R. Cain, Merrillville, Indiana, shall be paid
a call under Rule 27 of the current Telegraphers' Agreement for
April 26, 29, 30, 1949; May 2, 3, 4 and 5, 1949, of which he was
improperly deprived because a section foreman, an employe not
coming within the scope of the Telegraphers' Agreement, was required and/or permitted by the Carrier in violation of the terms
of the Telegraphers' Agreement to copy a line-up of train movements on those dates at Merrillville from the operator of Beatrice,
Ind., by means of the telephone at a time the claimant was not on
duty; and,
(2) That agent-operator B. T. Reder, Malden, Indiana, shall be paid
a call under Rule 27 of the current Telegraphers' greement for
April 26, 27, 28 and 29, 1949, of which he was improperly deprived
because a section foreman, an employe not coming within the
scope of the Telegraphers' Agreement, was required and/or
permitted by the Carrier in violation of the terms of the Telegraphers' Agreement to copy a line-up of train movements on those
dates at Malden from the operator at "QN" Tower and/or Beatrice by means of the telephone at a time the claimant was not
on duty.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: An agreement bearing effective
date of October 16, 1947, superseding all previous agreements in effect prior
to October
le,
1947, is in effect between the parties to this dispute.
The schedule of positions and rates of pay attached to and constituting
a part of that agreement lists at page 19 the following Chicago Division
positions:
"Malden -Agent-operator
2nd operator
3rd operator
Merrillvill
e--Agent-operator
2nd operator
3rd operator"
[10961
5584-18
1113
is the contention of the employes that delivery of the line-ups to
the motor-car operators may not properly be made by telephone
communication between the motor-car operators and telegraph operators located at points other than those where the motor-car operators
are stationed. This contention, which, if upheld, might necessitate
the assignment of telegraph operators at all points where line-ups
are found to be necessary, is urged by the employes despite the provisions of Rule 58 of the Agreement and the long-established practice of the carrier in this connection.
"Rule 58, captioned Telephones, which displaced an earlier rule
captioned Using Telephone, imposes in this regard express restrictions, explicitly stated, upon the carrier, but these restrictions are
specifically made applicable only to the handling of train orders.
No persuasive consideration has been presented for assuming, as
contended by the employes, that this rule with regard to train orders
was designed to restrict the rights of the employes, as established
by the scope rule, rather than those of the Carrier, by way of express
definition of the scope rule in controversial situations, and that therefore the scope rule not only applies to such handling of line-ups as is
here involved but is more comprehensive in its restrictions upon the
carrier in connection with line-ups than it is in connection with train
orders." (Emphasis supplied).
Thus, in rendering Award 1145, your Board held that the Scope Rule
was not all inclusive and that the use of the telephone by motor car operators in securing line-ups from telegraph operators did not constitute a
violation of that rule.
In handling this case the Organization relied on Award 3881. Your Board
ruled in that award that under the Scope Rule on the carrier involved the
work in question belonged exclusively to the Telegraphers. On this carrier
your Board has held that it does not. Furthermore, in Award 3881 the Referee
had the mistaken impression that the "line-ups" pertained to control over
transportation movements. On this carrier the "line-ups" do not govern
transportation movements, i.e., movement of trains, and your Board has so
held in Award 1145.
That the carrier has fully complied with Award 1145 is not denied by
the Organization.
It is the position of the carrier that the principle involved in the instant
claim has been settled on this property by your Award 1145 and the instant
claim should be denied.
(Exhibits not reproduced).
OPINION OF BOARD:
The facts, applicable rules and circumstances
here present are practically identical with those involved in Award No. 5582.
Our Opinion and Findings in that award are equally applicable here.
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;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and
That Carrier did not violate the Agreement.
5584-19
111-1
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST: A. I. Tummon
Acting Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of December, 1951.