in connection with subsequent collective bargaining agreements made no effort whatsoever to change.

The claim should be denied.

All data in support of Carrier's position has been submitted to the Organization and made a part of the particular question in dispute.

(Exhibits not reproduced).

OPINION OF BOARD: It might appear at first blush that the referee in this case would be bound by Award 1878 relied on by the Organization, in which this same rule (21) in almost identical language was involved, and we sustained the claim, but there is a brief paragraph in that Award that relieves us from being bound by it, said paragraph reading: "The Carrier sees faint hope in its position in Award No. 1489, but that was a dispute as 'between two employes of the same class,' certainly not true in this case where the orders were handled by a conductor." In Award No. 1489 the claim was dismissed. For a discussion of the above see Award 2087.

While it is true in Award 1489 that the dispute was between two operators (telegraphers is the word used in our rule) we think for the purpose of this case the same principle must prevail.

The first paragraph of Rule (21) involved in the present Agreement reads as follows:

"No employes other than covered by this contract and train dispatchers (emphasis supplied) will be permitted to handle train orders at telegraph or telephone offices where a telegrapher is employed and is available or can be promptly located, except in an emergency, in which case the telegrapher will be paid for the call."

This referee said in Award 1878 that there was no ambiguity in this rule, and he is still of the same opinion, although it would seem that the resort by both sides to past practice in connection with the application of the rule, that it might be otherwise.

While the Organization states in its original submission "When the third telegrapher's position was removed, on each occasion heremabove mentioned, the work of that position, during the periods above set forth, was transferred, by Carrier, without agreement, to the train dispatcher then on duty. This occurred daily during the time the telegrapher was off. We will show that the work continued during this time; that the dispatcher copied and delivered train orders, prepared and delivered clearance cards to trains at Alamosa and otherwise did work which properly belonged to telegraphers" the joint check was apparently limited to "train orders, D&RGW transfers and clearance cards" Whether so limited or not we think it unimportant because it appears that all the work complained of as being improperly transferred to the dispatcher was work related to "the movement of trains by train orders" which under Rule 21 the dispatcher is entitled to perform. See Awards 5018 and 5468 as to "related work."

We do not believe that the Organization's attempt to segregate the duties of telegraphers and dispatchers is important in any situation where this train order rule is in effect, but even assuming that there was a segregation, and assuming that "dispatcher will be contacted" in the Note to Rule 21 means he will be called, it could very well happen to Alamosa that the dispatcher would be called frequently to the exclusion of the telegrapher even with telegrapher on duty.

Our conclusion, therefore, is that under the first paragraph of Rule 21, the train dispatcher is entitled to perform the work involved and there was no violation of the agreement,

That the Carrier did not violate the Agreement.

AWARD