THIRD DIVISION

(Supplemental)




PARTIES TO DISPUTE:



CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad that:




EMPLOYE'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is in existence between the parties hereto, an agreement bearing an effective date of August 1, 1947 as to rules and working conditions, and of September 1, 1947 as to rates of pay, all applicable provisions of which, as amended, are here invoked. Such rules or provisions, which apply in this dispute, will be quoted as Employes' Statement of Position is developed.


At Stuart, Iowa, respondent Carrier maintains one Agent-Telegrapher position under the scope of the aforesaid agreement. The incumbent claimant, J. W. Dailey, has assigned hours 7:30 A. M. to 4:30 P. M. (with one hour off for meals) Monday thru Friday, rest days Saturday and Sunday. Claimant Dailey and the station at Stuart are under the jurisdiction of Carrier's Superintendent, Chief and Trick Dispatchers at Fairbury, Nebraska, Western Division. Dailey is subject to call for service, while off duty, under the "call" and "rest-day" rules of the controlling agreement.


On December 10, 1955, a Saturday and one of claimant's assigned rest days, at 1:28 P. M., Carrier's Trick Dispatcher issued Train Order No. 232, addressed to a starting engine and train crew at West Des Moines, reading as follows:



10418--9 515

been delivered because none was required, there was no violation of the Telegraphers' Agreement or the Special Train Order Agreement of December 7, 1954.


The Carrier's position in this dispute is fully supported by your Board's Award 6609, in which it was said:




Because there was no violation of the agreement in this case, the Carrier has declined this claim and respectfully requests your Board to support our declination.


It is hereby affirmed that all of the foregoing is, in substance, known to the Employes' representatives.


OPINION OF BOARD: On December 10, 1955, the Carrier issued Train Order 232 to its Engine 1282 to make a turn around trip from West Des Moines to Stuart, Iowa.






A telegrapher at West Des Moines copied that order from Carrier's Train Dispatcher, and said telegrapher delivered it to the crew members of 1282. No one else handled the order. The order was at all times thereafter held by the crew on the 1282; it was for no ones use other than their own. They delivered it to no one else. This order authorized them to run from West Des Moines to Stuart and return, a turn around trip, which was accomplished in a single tour of duty. There were no additional orders.


There was no telegrapher on duty on the day in question, it being his assigned day off, but he claims a call for this day because Employes not under his Scope Agreement handled and delivered Train Order No. 232.


The question is whether the crew on Extra 1282 can be said to have delivered Order No. 232 to themselves at Stuart.


The pertinent Agreement between the parties or particular section thereof is Rule 24, and specifically Section 3 of the supplemental application thereof, to-wit:




We believe the aforesaid Rule (Supra) provides for payment only when orders are delivered by one train to another i.e. under circumstances where one train met or overtook another train and there was no telegrapher on duty where this type of delivery was effected.

10418-10 516

In the instant case, the crew of 1282 received Order No. 232 to run extra to Stuart and return to West Des Moines. The order was not completed at Stuart, it would be completed at West Des Moines. By the very nature of Order No. 232, it wasn't necessary to receive new orders at Stuart. Train Orders are not fulfilled until it is completed.


In this case we have the same crew and the same train. There were no Employes outside the Agreement that handled or delivered Order No. 232. See Awards 9223, 3779, 4819, 6609.


We find nothing in the rules that prohibits a round trip order, and there are no provisions in the rules requiring orders to be delivered at their point of execution. Here they were delivered by the proper person within the Agreement to the proper persons.


We read with meticulous care the many awards of this Board submitted by the claimant on the theory that these past precedents sustained their position. They are all distinguishable on the facts.




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 Employe 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












Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of March 1962.