ment of telegraphers at Murphysboro would be an unnecessary waste of manpower and revenues. This Board has consistently held that dispatchers may properly perform all communication service and that the dispatchers performing such communication service does not violate the Telegraphers' agreement.

Carrier urges that the claim be denied.

Carrier reserves the right to make an answer to any further submission of the Organization.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: The facts upon which this Award must be resolved are so nearly paralleled by those found in Award No. 6650, this Board, Rader, Referee, as to constitute it a binding precedent, if sound, as we believe it to be.

In the Claim leading up to the Award in No. 6650 the Organization questioned the right of this Carrier to abolish the position of "third shift telegrapher-ticket clerk" at Murphysboro, Illinois. Here, the Claim challenges the abolition of the positions of "first and second shift telegrapher-clerks" at the same station.

The opinion in the cited Award concludes:

"We are of the opinion that these claims must fail by reason of several factors: (1) Delay in progressing the same on the property. (2) Past practice, and (3) A failure to assume the burden of proof necessary to establish the same for a sustaining award."

It is the second reason assigned which has application in this submission.

Upon the issues of past practice and reduction of volume of business at Murphysboro, the Carrier has offered more supporting facts than is found in the record in the cited Award.

The cited opinion is well written, fully and carefully considers and re. solves the contentions here advanced for and against the allowance of the Claim.

We will, however, as briefly as practicable, consider some of the developments in this submission.

Rule 15 of the controlling Agreement specifically authorized the train dispatchers at Murphysboro to "handle train orders" and necessary related work but the services performed by them included other work emanating from that dispatching station.

It is recognized that when a Scope Rule, as found in the Telegraphers' Agreement, is general in terms or silent in defining duties of the designated members of the Craft, whether or not such duties are the exclusive right of the Telegraphers to perform, if questioned, may be determined by custom, tradition or practice in connection with the Rule.

In this submission it is established by undenied statement, by affidavits and by written admission of a former General Chairman of the Organization that the type of work involved had been recognized by the immediate Carrier, and its predecessors, as not within the exclusive right of the Telegraphers to perform.

At Murphysboro during all the years encompassed by the record, dispatchers were on duty around the clock. In 1929 there were but two .telegraphers on duty. In 1930 one of these positions was abolished This one telegrapher was on duty until 1942 when another was employed and later a third. From 1930 to 1942 all .the work at the communications station of the Carrier for two thirds of the time was handled by dispatchers.

In 1949 the position of the third telegrapher at Murphysboro was abolished which action was made the subject of the Claim and the Award in No. 6650, supra.

At all times covered by the record the dispatchers handled all of the types of work required and involved in this Claim. When it became necessary, because of increase in business, telegraphers were assigned who assisted in the work to be done and when business decreased to an extent that both telegraphers and dispatchers were not needed the telegraphers were released.

That was the settled and uniform practice.

It appears that business had materially decreased at Murphysboro when the claimant Telegraphers were released and their positions abolished. The Organization denies that the work has decreased to an extent justifying the action taken but there is no showing whatever that the dispatchers retained cannot alone handle all the duties remaining to be performed.

Corroborative of the practice at Murphysboro, the Carrier shows that throughout its system, with few exceptions, it permitted dispatchers at all times to do the kind of work involved in this Claim and for long periods they did all of such work without the assistance of any telegrapher.

We have considered the Awards cited by the Organization.

In Award No. 5256, Boyd, Referee, it was the Claim that the Carrier violated the Agreement in abolishing an "operator-clerk" position at Tuscaloosa, Alabama, a station on the line of this Carrier, and transferring his work to a chief train dispatcher. The Board refused to make an award because of insufficient facts in the record and remanded the claim with this direction:

"* * * if the work now being done is the same, generally, as was being done in 1929 by dispatchers at Tuscaloosa, the Organization has no claim; but if it is substantially different in character and volume from what it was in 1929, the telegraphers are entitled to it under their Agreement. * * *"

What eventual disposition was made on this remand does not appear.

But, on this record, it is quite clear that the work done in 1929, and until this Claim was asserted, by the telegraphers at Murphysboro, was the same in every particular.

Award No. 4018, Douglas, Referee, involved claims for pay for calls to which it was asserted the telegraphers, under their Agreement, were entitled. The work, subject of the dispute, was the transmission to Section Foremen, directly from Train Dispatchers, of communications respecting movement of trains. It is not helpful in this submission.

Award 6675: Unfortunately, the rationale of the opinion sustaining the second and third paragraphs of the Claim is not well defined. However, it is evident that it was based, in part, at least, on the violation of the Carrier of a written promise "that no train orders will be telephoned to the yards at Tamms when a telegrapher is not on duty."

The opinion and Award in No. 6689, Leiserson, Referee, is most heavily relied upon by claimants, as it might well be. It arose at the same station and the telegrapher for whom the claim was there made held the relief assignment for the telegraphers for whom the Claim is here made. The Claim here considered was then pending but it does not appear that all the facts, as now presented, were then before the Board.

The opinion in Award 6689 follows the theory that when the 40 Hour Week Rule became effective, at which time the relief assignment was abolished, the first and second trick Telegraphers were regularly assigned to seven day positions and their relief was also specifically assigned and that there was still work to be done on this relief.

It is significant that the Referee says "Nowhere in the record * * * does the Carrier present any evidence to show .that the rearranged assignments were due to decreased traffic." The opinion concedes that the train dispatchers and agent regularly perform some of the duties as the telegraphers but "It is also .true that there was plenty of work to be done on the rest days of the assigned telegraphers * * '."

It is evident that the fact pattern which the Board found to be established and upon which the Award was based differed in some material particulars from that which we find, although it must be conceded that the opinion in the cited Award cannot be completely reconciled with our conclusion.

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 was not violated.

AWARD