NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Peter M. Kelliher, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS
THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of The General Committee of The Order
of Railroad Telegraphers on The Pennsylvania Railroad; that,
1. On Saturday, August 20, 1949, W. J. Hartpence, Extra Train
Director, "Fair" Tower, Trenton, N. J., was improperly removed
from service without just cause and, therefore withheld from
service seven (7) days in violation of the current agreement
and later given seven (7) days suspension for an alleged offense;
and
2. W. J. Hartpence shall be compensated for the time held out of
service and in addition thereto compensated for days traveling
to New York in connection with the alleged offense and his record cleared accordingly.
OPINION OF BOARD:
Although a conflict of testimony exists, the Claimant did violate Supplemental Instruction 4120 to the Operating, Signal and
Interlocking Rules. The Claimant's testimony at the August 24, 1949 investigation is in part as follows:
"*
* * I went back on the bridge line with Conductor Van
Norman and said, 'stay in the clear and give me a call at 11:22 A. M.
Conductor Van Norman replied, 'you mean after the Nellie leaves.'
I said, 'no that 2569 leaves Trenton at 11:20 A. M. I said, 'and besides if the Roebling Drill comes up, the Dispatcher wants you to get
out of his way.' Conductor Van Norman replied, 'O.K."'
The Trial Record shows that the Claimant further testified under Exhibit "D":
"Q. After Conductor Van Norman repeated the instructions what
did he say to you?
"A. Conductor Van Norman did not repeat the instructions the
way I gave them to him, he merely said OK.
"Q. Did you make any comment on the manner in which he
acknowledged the conversation?
"A. No, sir."
110327
i
6381-2
1033
Supplemental Instruction 4120 reads in part as follows:
"Employes using telephones of tramphones in connection with
train movements must satisfy themselves that they are in communication with the proper persons and must not consider conversation
finished until
the persons taking part are assured that they heard all
of the conversation and that it is understood.
a; * ."
"Verbal arrangements and instructions in regard of trains being
clear of, or desiring to occupy certain tracks, etc.,
must be repeated
by the person receiving the information. (Emphasis supplied.)"
The Claimant was using the telephone "in connection with train movements" and he should not have considered the "conversation finished" until
he was "assured" that the Conductor "understood". The conversation related
to "arrangements and instructions in regard of trains being clear of, or desiring to occupy certain tracks." The only method of knowing that the "conversation" was understood was prescribed in the Instruction to be that the
"arrangements" must "be repeated by the person receiving the information."
Claimant admits that the Conductor did not repeat the "instructions"
and that he did not make any comment to the Conductor "on the manner
in which he acknowledged the conversation."
The Board must find that both individuals involved in the misunderstanding failed to comply with Supplemental Instruction 4120, which was
specifically designed to prevent such a situation as occurred in this case.
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 the Agreement has not been violated.
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST: (Sgd.) A. Ivan Tummon
Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of October, 1953.