ATLANTA & WEST POINT RAILROAD-THE WESTERN
RAILWAY OF ALABAMA
(a) The carrier violated and continues to violate the provisions of the agreement between the parties when it requires or permits employes not covered by the terms of said agreement to block trains, perform "OS" work by reporting arrival of trains, copy train orders, and handle other communications work of record by the use of the telephone at Roanoke Junction, Alabama; and
(b) In consequence of its violative acts the Carrier shall be required to compensate the senior idle employe covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement on the district where the violations occur in the amount of one day's pay of eight hours commencing September 8, 1950, and continuing until such time as the Carrier may assign this work to an employe covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement.
in event of a sustaining award, the claim should only run from September 8, 1950 to June 18, 1952.
(a) Carrier has conclusively demonstrated by the record that the work complained of is by tradition, historical practice and custom not reserved exclusively to Petitioners and there is no merit to their claim.
(b) That the claims for senior idle employes are ambiguous and not valid.
(c) That the claim as filed is a duplicate of claim filed in August 1937 and is outlawed by reason of the General Chairman having failed to appeal from denial by the highest officer in December 1937.
In views of the facts presented apd for the reasons stated, this claim should be declined.
OPINION OF BOARD: In respect to the matter of prior abandonment of a similar claim, we have previously ruled that employee may waive their rights under the Agreement in a particular instance without being barred from thereafter asserting a claim upon the same facts. (Award 4054). Regarding undue delay in processing a dispute to this Board, see recent Award 6721.
This Division, on February 1, 1954, in Award 6487, denied the claims of this Organization in what appeared a similar dispute arising upon the same property. There, claims were made because seven conductors had allegedly copied train orders, received by telephone, at points where no telegrapher was employed It is argued that said Award is incorrect because it is based upon a letter written by the General Chairman many years before which, it is stated, dealt with an entirely different subject. Further, that the cases are distinguishable because in that subject of Award 6487 only occasional train orders were handled by the Claimants while in the instant case "OS" reports, line-ups and train orders are handled upon a regular, everyday basis by non-telegraphers. Nevertheless, both cases involve communications of record and the distinctions pointed out would seem to be of degree and not of substance. If in all its essentials it is the identical dispute, question arises as to how far we may proceed in giving reconsideration to the issues once decided.
Study of the docket in the earlier case reflects that the same Awards were cited as controlling and, in substance, the same arguments were made. We find no glaring error in Award 6487 such as to justify reversal. As stated in paragraph 5 of the Memorandum to Accompany Award 1680, and reaffirmed in Award 6710:
A contrary course would tend to discourage settlements between the parties and discourage prompt compliance with Awards rendered.
6784-31 1082