'/s/ Jesse Clark

'President

'cc: R. B. LeBaron, General Chairman

H. E, Van De Walker, Local Chairman'

"The above-quoted letter reveals that the Signalmen's Organization was not relinquishing its established right of performing the communication work (the maintenance of the telephone and telegraph lines and equipment) that it had been performing since 1910."

The Organization in support of its position quotes from Award No. 8207 rendered under date of January 10, 1958 as follows:

"The undisputed facts in this case clearly resolve the question of tradition, practice, and custom on this Carrier. One of the Agreements was entered into in 1926 and the other in 1928. One had thus been in effect for 24 years and the other for 26 years before the instant claims were presented. During all that time, and in fact since 1924, conductors have been copying train orders at telephone booths under similar circumstances to those involved in this case. They were doing so at the time the Agreements were negotiated and executed. Parties are generally held to contract in the light of conditions, practice, and customs existing at the time, and an intent to effect a change in them may not be left to inference but must be expressed in clear language." (Emphasis ours.)

POSITION OF CARRIER

For many years prior to September 6, 1956, the maintenance of Carrier owned telephone and telegraph lines was performed by two groups of Employes i.e. linemen and signalmen. The former group (linemen) was not represented by any Organization until October 15, 1953 when the I. B. E. W. was certified by the National Mediation Board. Soon thereafter negotiations began between the Carrier and the I. B. E. W. concerning rates of pay, rules and working conditions of these Employes. Carrier was unable to reach Agreement with the I. B. E. W. with respect to two rules i.e. Classification of Work or Scope Rule and an Assignment of Work Rule, in view of the fact that a portion of the work was claimed by the B. R. S. A. In order to preserve the status quo which existed at the time the I. B. E. W. was certified to represent Linemen, Carrier proposed the following:

"With reference to Agreement entered into this date between the C. G. W. Railway Company and the I. B. E. W. governing rates of pay, rules and working conditions of Line Gang Foremen, Linemen and Helpers, it is understood that said Agreement is not intended and does not change the practice of having employes of other classifications engage in line work up to fifty (50) per cent of their time."

The I. B. E. W. declined to accept the Carrier's proposal stating that on many railroads linemen exclusively were performing the work in dispute. They further pointed out that communication line work (maintenance of tele-

"On April 27, 1956 Carrier and the I.B.E.W., with the assistance of the National Mediation Board entered into an arbitration agreement. Item Fourth of the Arbitration Agreement is shown below:

'The specific questions to be submitted to the Board for decision are as follows:

'1. What coverage shall the scope rule provide for employes of the Chicago Great Western Railway Company, represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers pursuant to National Mediation Board Certification Case No. R-2634 dated October 15th 1953, copy attached.

'2. Shall the employes represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers pursuant to the National Mediation Board Certification Case No. R-2634 dated October 15th 1957 have exclusive right to the performance of work determined in Item 1 above."'

"Hearing on Arbitration Case No. A-4557 closed at 1:05 P. M., August 3, 1956. Chairman of the Arbitration Board received the following Western Union telegram from President Jesse Clark of the I.B.E.W. (Sic) Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of America.

PERSONNEL OFFICER-CHICAGO GREAT WESTERN BY. CO. 700 MULBERRY ST., KSC

'WE UNDERSTAND YOU ARE SERVING AS THE NEUTRAL ARBITRATOR IN A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CHICAGO AND GREAT WESTERN RWY AND THE INTL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS INVOLVING THE NEGOTIATION OF A SCOPE RULE. WE FURTHER UNDERSTAND CARRIER IS USING MY COMMUNICATION ADDRESSED MR. E. C. THOMPSON SECY NATL MEDIATION BOARD DATED SEPT 23 1955 IN SUPPORT OF ITS POSITION. WE WANT IT DISTINCTLY UNDERSTOOD THAT OUR BROTHERHOOD IS NOT CLAIMING JURISDICITION OVER COMMUNICATION WORKS AS SUCH INVOLVED IN THIS DISPUTE. HOWEVER OUR RIGHT TO PERFORM SIGNAL WORK AS OUTLINED IN OUR CURRENT AGREEMENT MUST BE RECOGNIZED.

'-JESSE CLARK, PRESIDENT BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNALMEN

OF AMERICA'

"Board of Arbitration met at 9:00 A. M., August 4, 1956 and at approximately 3:00 P. M. that date handed down its award, pertinent portions of which are shown below:

'Beginning August 2, 1956, and continuing through August 3, 1956, the Board of Arbitration heard, under oath, the witnesses of the parties and received their exhibits, and granted a full and fair hearing, including an opportunity to present evidence in support of their respective claims, and to present their cases by representatives of their choosing, and heard their arguments.

'Thereupon, and upon full consideration of all the evidence, exhibits, and arguments presented to it, the Board finds the following rules to be warranted thereby, and hereby, on this 4th day of August, 1956, makes its award under said agreement and files the same together with the papers and proceedings and a transcript of the evidence taken at the hearings, certified under the hands of the arbitrators, with the Clerk of the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division, wherein the arbitration was entered into:

'AWARD

'In answer to the first specific question posed in Section Fourth of the Arbitration Agreement set forth above, the Board of Arbitration in this case writes the following Scope Rule and directs the parties to include same in their Agreement:

'RULE