In the territory involved in this dispute, instructions of long standing have been to the effect that train dispatchers would not furnish lineups to Section Foremen and these instructions are still in effect.

It may be possible that at 7:40 A. M. and at 12:35 P. M., when the Train Dispatcher puts out the lineup to all Agents and Telegraphers, that some Section Foremen may be listening in on the dispatchers telephone and copying for their own use that portion of the information the Dispatcher gives the Agent or Telegrapher, which they desire. This may be done rather than securing same from Agents or Telegraphers and having them repeat it. The instructions are, however, that Section Foremen should secure their lineups, if a telegrapher is employed at the point and not on duty, from an agent or telegrapher at the nearest office of communication, who relays it to the section foremen. If, during the day, Section Foremen or others come in on the dispatcher's telephone and ask for a revised line-up, the train dispatcher furnishes the line-up to the nearest office of communication where it is relayed to the Section Foremen.

The Carrier holds the manner in which lineups are handled on the territory involved is strictly in accord with the provisions of Award 1320 of your Board, which Award covers an identical claim on this property involving the same organization.

Lineups can be secured by Section Foremen in the Denver-Craig territory from the agents and operators at North Yard-Denver, Sulphur, Kremmling, Orestod, Phippsburg, Steamboat Springs, and Craig In the territory south of Denver they can be secured at Littleton, Palmer Lake and Colorado Springs.

During discussion of this case, the Organization cited Award 4772 of your Board which covers a claim on this property as supporting the claim. The Carrier holds that Award 4772 applies only to the territory Pueblo to Salida and contends that Award 1320 is still controlling in other locations and that the latter Award has established the pattern with respect to telegraphers-any telegrapher-furnishing Section Foremen on this property with lineups.

The Carrier asserts the Organization is seeking through your Board, an award, which would require the Carrier to have telegraphers employed at points where Section Foremen or any other employes using line-ups are employed, despite the fact the present practice in the territory involved of obtaining line-ups from telegraphers has been in effect for many years and despite the fact there would at many points-such as those in the instant case where no telegraphers are employed-be nothing for telegraphers to do but to secure one or two lineups per day.

The Carrier holds there is no jurisdiction for the instant claim and it should be denied just as the identical question in this dispute was denied by Award 1320.

All data in support of the Carrier's position has been submitted to the Organization and made a part of the particular question in dispute. The right to answer any data not previously submitted to Carrier by the Organization is reserved by Carrier.

Exhibits not reproduced).

OPINION OF BOARD: The facts and contentions of the parties are set out in the record, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in a detailed review of the same in this Opinion.

In brief the Petitioners rely on the facts and Award 4772, (between the same parties), which award was based in part on the findings made in Awards 3671, 3881 and 4516.

Respondent Carrier relies on Award 1320, also on the property of the Carrier, but on a different division thereof, and on practice over a period of years.

"As appears from the submissions, the factual situation and the rule resulting in Award 4516 are the same as those premising the present claim; that award was carefully considered, and further inconsistency in decision can only plague the industry with confusion worse confounded. We think that award should be followed."

On behalf of Carrier it is submitted herein that in Award 4772 Carrier made no attempt to show practice, thinking that reliance upon Award 1320 was sufficient.

However, it will be noted in several awards on this property relating to similar situations, practice has been considered and undoubtedly Referee Mortimer Stone gave consideration to this phase of the matter when in the last paragraph of that Opinion it is stated in part:

"However, in view of the fact that prior Award 1320 was made on its property, the Carrier should not be penalized for operating consistently with that award. * * *"

Claims 1 and 2 should be sustained. Claim 3 denied in following Award 4772, rather than other awards cited in support of Claim 3, in order that a consistent plan be followed on this property, which we think correct.

E71NDINGS: 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

Claims 1 and 2 sustained. Claim 3 denied in accordance with Opinion.

AWARD