STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the Lehigh Valley Railroad, that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is in full force and effect a collective bargaining agreement between the Lehigh Valley Railroad, hereinafter referred to as Carrier or Management, and The Order of Railroad Telegraphers, hereinafter referred to as Employes or Telegraphers, governing rates of pay, rules and working conditions for employes covered thereby. The Agreement was effective February 1, 1948 and is by reference made a part hereof as though copied herein word for word.
The dispute submitted herein involves interpretation of the aforesaid agreement; was handled on the property in the usual manner to and including the highest officer designated by Management to handle such disputes. Management has declined the claim of Employes and the dispute remains unadjusted. Under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, this Board has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.
The dispute concerns the handling (receiving, copying and delivering) of track car permits at Port Reading Junction; the employe performing such work not being covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement.
The Organization did attempt to persuade the Carrier to adopt a rule applicable at blind sidings. Failing in the attempt to negotiate such a rule, the Organization now seeks to obtain the equivalent of such by asking your Board to sustain the instant claim in the absence of a rule to support it. In view of the many awards this Board has rendered against such action, we feel certain that the Board will not even attempt to do so.
That the Board will not make agreements or write rules has been decided in many awards. A few such awards of the Third Division are:
Of course, there are many more by this Division, as well as the other Divisions of the National Railroad Adjustment Board. Also many awards have been rendered as to the merits of the type of claim here under consideration. Those which have been decided on rules similar to ours have been denied. To mention a few, the Third Division has denied such claims in award numbers:
Particular attention is directed to Award No. 4259 and Award No. 6959; the rule involved in both of those awards is practically identical with our Rule 32. There is no question that the meaning of the rules in those awards and our rule is identical. The rules in those awards are also confined to points where telegraph or telephone offices are located and where operators are employed, etc. The Carriers' position in those awards reflects practically the same history of the rule involved as in the instant claim.
The Carrier respectfully submits that this claim is entirely without merit, and requests the Board to deny this claim.
The facts presented in this submission were made a matter of discussion with the Committee in conference on the property.
OPINION OF BOARD: The question to be answered in this case-the same as in Awards 8146 and 8540-is, whether the Carrier violated the Agreement when it permitted track car driver employes to receive, copy, repeat and deliver track car permits, at a point where no telegrapher was assigned.
The record indicates that, at points where no telegrapher is assigned, the handling of track car permits has been within the work activities of track car drivers for many years. So widely accepted is the practice, that the Carrierin 1944-established Operating Rule No. 80 which describes in detail the procedures to be followed in the movement of track cars.
In this particular case, the Petitioner failed to prove its exclusive right to the work involved.
The Board believes that the issue herein involved could he more effectively and expeditiously settled in contract negotiations. 16060-11 131