nally Form 9024 was designed to show that it was copied by an operator, but later revisions of it have removed the "Opr" title in a subtle effort to obliterate this evidence of the operators' (telegraphers') established jurisdiction over this work. The bare fact is, however, that such work has been pirated from the telegraphers through the instrumentality of the "emergency" telephones which the Carrier has sworn, by everything holy, were to be used for emergency purposes only.

The evidence in this case is that the Carrier has, by its instructions through Headmaster McLaughlin's letter of June 1, 1953, converted the emergency stations at Flathead, Knowles, McDonald, Schley and Evaro into regular communicating offices for the express purpose of removing established work from the Telegraphers' Agreement and the employes of the Rocky Mountain Division District. Your Board has held in many decisions that work of a class covered by the Agreement belongs to the employes upon whose behalf it was made and cannot be delegated to others without violating the agreement. The record in this case is quite plain that the lineups in question represent work which accrued to the claimant, which he had performed time after time; that the emergency telephones were resorted to as a medium to divert such work from the claimant in total absence of any emergency; and that the communications handled were those of record and therefore subject to the Scope rule of the Telegraphers' Agreement. The Carrier should have bulletined telegraphers' positions at the points enumerated pursuant to the Agreement or allowed these claims on the occasions an employe not covered by the Agreement was required to perform such work. A sustaining award is fully merited and the Employes request such an award.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant is regularly assigned as Agent-Telegrapher at Arles, Montana, a one man station. His claim "for payment of eight hours at ime and one-half rate on Saturday, June 6, 1953 account Track Supervisor Richard Lechner securing a line-up of trains at Flathead, Montana, direct from the Train Dispatcher", is before the Board for decision on the ex parte submission of Carrier and the Employes' response.

There is in evidence a contract by and between the parties to this dispute effective April 1, 1948, as revised. The Track Supervisor is not covered, but works under an Agreement which the Carrier has with the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes. He operates a track motor car in his travels over the lines of the Carrier to perform his duties.

Saturday and Sunday are claimant's assigned rest days, but prior to March 1, 1953 he was assigned regularly to work 12:20 P. M. to 2:20 P. M. on Saturdays, and, while so assigned, secured line-ups for the Track Supervisor on his regular trips over the portion of the railroad where Arlee is located.

After claimant's Saturday assignment was discontinued, the Track Supervisor continued to make his customary trips on Saturday and continued to need a line-up, on most of the days, which he obtained at Arles from the Train Dispatcher by telephone. On Saturday, June 6, 1953 while en route

'Paradise to Missoula, at Flathead (a blind siding), as instructed, he secured information from the dispatcher in connection with the movement of trains. Flathead is located 5.3 miles west of Arles.

It appears attempt is made in this docket to resolve a controversial question, by creating a situation for securing information from the dispatcher concerning movement of trains at a place where no telegrapher was employed. We find in the record a directive to Track Supervisors to use the

telephone at stations where no telegrapher was employed, the reason given being that:

"We will be in a better position to deny call claims from telegraphers at stations where Saturday service is not assigned."

The Employes have submitted another claim, Award No. 7345, which serves to bring the entire controversy to our attention.

Despite Carrier's contention to the contrary, we find and hold here that the information furnished the Track Supervisor by the dispatcher constituted a line-up and that line-ups are communications of record on the property in question. Neither does it serve any purpose that Carrier argues there is an absence of proof as to whether the Track Supervisor reduced the information to writing or made a mental note concerning same. This Carrier's own rules definitely establish the fact that track motor car operators are to be covered on train movements by line-ups which are to be reduced to writing on a standard form required by Carrier.

Carrier's Exhibits A to X impress us as being mostly self-serving and of little probative value. The controversy that has existed and which still exists over the class of work here in dispute convinces us, without aid of exhibits, that line-ups are obtained by Track Supervisors from Telegraphers when tey can and from the dispatcher when it proves more handy to do so. But, is it a violation of contract to do so? That, is the question and it is not one of recent origin on this property.

We find from Carrier's Exhibit "Z" in the record that as early as 1937, at least, the Telegrapher craft had staked out a claim to the class of work in question. It has been observed that the dispute there concerned others as well, and, that the Maintenance of Way Employes were not parties, but the Telegrapers make it clear, as a party to the dispute, that "they object to their work (copy train orers and to call dispatchers on telephone in connection with train movements) being performed by employes not in the telegraph service".

The Carrier must have seen some merit to the claim. A settlement was made, and, effective August 1, 1941 restrictions were imposed so far as train and enginemen are concerned. We do not say that settlement is binding on Carrier in this dispute, but the implications cannot be ignored.

Telegraphers, as the result of the August 1, 1941, settlement are on record as to what exceptions they will recognize where others perform the class of work here in dispute, but those exceptions do not extend to this docket. No other rule that would serve that purpose or support Carrier's claim of practice has been called to our attention. We are not disposed to add another exception, on the showing made in this docket, that at times, others have obtained information about train movements over the telephone.

Being of the opinion, as heretofore expressed, that the subject matter of this dispute concerns a message of record, it should have been obtained, as in the past, by the Track Supervisor from the Agent-Telegrapher who here makes claim.

The measure of compensation is that provided in Rule 75 of the Agreement of April 1, 1948. See Award No. 7345. .

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 the Agreement was violated.

AWARD