Dispatcher positions" are outside the Agreement's scope. Presented here with the same issue the answer must be the same. A denial award is, therefore, required.

The Carrier affirmatively stated that all data contained herein has been handled with the representatives of the employes.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: The claim appears several times in the record and will not be re-stated here.

The dispute in the instant case arises over the interpretation of Article 1(a) and (b) and Article 5(a) of the Agreement between the parties. These sections of the Agreement will not be re-quoted here.

The Carrier raises a procedural question that the claim here at issue has not been properly submitted by the train dispatcher aggrieved. This question was not urged in the oral arguments but, for the record, the Board hereby finds that the claim is properly before this Board. Award No. 4461, No. 4850, No. 19320.

There is a disagreement in the record as to how the matter had been handled prior to March 28, 1959. The Petitioner states in its brief under the Employe's Statement of Facts as follows:

"At the time this dispute arose, relief service for rest days, vacations, sickness and other absences on the Chief Train Dispatcher position at Danville, Illinois, was being performed by an employe fully covered by all rules of the current Agreement.

"On or about March 15, 1959, Carrier established a position of Train Rules Examiner, which is an official position, outside the scope of any Agreement.

"On March 28, 1959, Carrier used the occupant of this position, and continues to use him, to perform relief service on the Chief Train Dispatcher position, when he is available, thus depriving extra train dispatchers of work contractually theirs.

"When the Train Rules Examiner is not available for such relief service, Carrier requires employes covered by the Train Dispatchers Agreement to perform this service."

In the Carrier's Statement of Facts we find the following:

"The Carrier maintains two dispatching offices-one at Danville, Illinois and one at Salem, Illinois. Each of these dispatching offices is under the jurisdiction of a Chief Dispatcher. As an officer of the company the Chief Dispatcher does not have a 'regularly assigned' rest day, however, insofar as possible the Chief Dispatcher in each dispatching office is given one day of rest a week. Normally such relief as may be necessary is afforded by having another officer sit in for the absent Chief Dispatcher.

As was found by the Referee in Award No. 10705 the record in our ease is not as complete as it might have been. It is difficult to tell what

practices have been followed in filling the position of Chief Train Dispatcher on rest days, vacations and other absences. However the record is clear that there has been discussions between the Petitioner and the Carrier in an effort to come to an Agreement on the principle issue involved here for some time prior to the date of the alleged violation.

Theemployes take the position that there is only one issue-whether the relief work arising out of the absence of the Chief Train Dispatcher must be covered by persons within the scope of the Agreement or, stated another way, whether persons not holding train dispatcher seniority may perform service as a Chief.

The Carrier states the issue is twofold: (a) whether or not Claimants have the exclusive right to work which is excepted from the Agreement between the parties; and (b) whether or not the Board should find that two awards by different referees on the same property, involving the same Agreement, dispute and parties should be reversed. Carrier cites Awards No. 7027, No. 10705, and many others. Claimants cites Award No. 7914 and many others.

"A reading of the Agreement reveals that the interpretation sought here is not proper, by reason of the fact that Chief Dispatcher positions are outside of the Agreement's scope."

Award No. 10705, as it was finally adopted by this Board, reads in part as follows:

"The parties to this dispute are the same Organization and Carrier who were involved in the dispute determined by Award 7027 (Rader). The Agreement is also the same. In Award 7027 the Organization sought to compel the Carrier to assign an employe covered by the Scope Rule to relieve the Chief Train Dispatcher on his rest days. In the dispute now before us the Organization is seeking the same relief by alleging a violation of the Agreement and requesting compensation for the 'senior qualified and available extra train dispatcher' . . or if none is available for 'the senior qualified regular assigned train dispatcher available on his regularly assigned rest day . .' We dismissed the claim in Award 7027 because of 'reading of the Agreement reveals that the interpretation sought here is not proper, by reason of the fact that Chief Dispatcher positions are outside of the Agreement's scope.'

'

The Petitioner maintains that the exception in Article 1(a), of one Chief Train Dispatcher on each train dispatching office, applies to a particular individual and not to the position. The awards cited by the Petitioner pertain to other properties and other Agreements and the issues decided in the other cases are not the same as the issues in this case. The issue in our case is whether or not the Employe has the right to demand the relief work involved. Many of the cases cited by the Petitioner raise the question as to how much pay is proper when the Carrier requires the Employe to work.

Awards No. 7027 and No. 10705 decided the issue that is before us in this case. Unless these two awards are palpably wrong it is our duty to follow them in this case.

In Award No. 10618 involving the same Petitioner but a different Carrier and a different issue we find a very similar Scope Rule but the Petitioner obtained a Supplemental Letter of Agreement from the Carrier in which it was stated in substance that temporary vacancies due to such weekly rest days, vacation in the position of Chief Train Dispatcher were to be filled by a qualified train dispatcher. In this case this Board stated:

Since No. 10705 was grounded on No. 7027 and that award gave no explanation as to the reasoning upon which the award was predicated but simply stated a single sentence conclusion, a careful examination of the record in that case was necessary. There it appeared that notice was given by this Petitioner to this same Carrier on the 28th day of August, 1952 requesting that this Agreement be amended to do by negotiation what is now asked the Board to do by interpretation. This notice reads as follows:

"Danville, 111.