No. Me. Jet. Opr. 1st $2.098

No. Me. Jet. Opr. 2nd 2.074

No. Me. Jet. Opr. 3rd 2.05

No. Me. Jet. Car Dist'r. 2.1769

No. Me. Jet. Asst. Car Dist'r. 2.1355

No. Me. Jet. Operator

(Car Dist'rs.) 2.0765

Prior to June 23, 1957, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd shift positions at North Maine Junction were assigned seven days per week. Hours 6:00 A. M. to 2:00 P. M.2:00 P. M. to 10:00 P. M.-10:00 P. M. to 6:00 A. M. respectively.

Commencing Sunday, June 23, 1957, the Carrier declared the Sunday assignment of the three Operator positions abolished, and shortly thereafter, abolished the Saturday assignment of the third shift Operator's position. Concurrent with the declared abolishment of the Saturday and Sunday assignment of the positions, work attached thereto was assigned to train dispatchers and/or other employes not covered by the Agreement, and in violation thereof.

Claimant D. F. Ellison in his time report dated October 9, 1957, attached as ORT EHIBIT N0. 1, filed two claims. One for September 14, 1957 reading:

"Claiming :; hours punitive rate account message handled between Tower MD and Dispr."

"Claiming 3 hours punitive rate account messages of record handled between Yard Office and Portland Dispr., by New England Telephone, at 1245 A. M. Sunday Oct. 6, 1957."

Claim One was passed and paid. Claim Two, involving the following reports of record, is a part of the subject matter of Item 1, Statement of Claim. The reports:

covered by this agreement and train dispatchers will be permitted to handle train orders, except in cases of emergency.

Paragraphs (b) and (c) of Article XXXIV specify penalty payments when other than train dispatchers and operators copy and deliver train orders.

With more than fifty years of past practice and no protest or time claims filed arising from train dispatchers at Houlton on the Northern Division issuing, copying and delivering train orders direct to crews, Carrier in 1957 blanked the operators' positions in the station at Northern Maine Junction on the Southern Division, 11:00 P. M. Saturday until 11:00 P. M. Sunday, and train dispatchers at Northern Maine Junction issued, copied and delivered train orders in exactly the same manner as was being done at Houlton. Carrier had no alternative but to decline time claims originating at Northern Maine Junction as result of adopting the same practice in effect at Houlton, as Article XXXIV, Paragraph (a), clearly establishes the right of train dispatchers to issue, copy and deliver train orders. It is apparent that after all these years a different interpretation is requested regardless of past practice, time limits, etc.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: The facts are not in dispute. Prior to June 23, 1957, the first, second and third shift telegrapher positions were assigned seven days a week. Effective June 23, 1957, Carrier abolished the three Sunday positions. Shortly thereafter Carrier abolished the third shift position on Saturday. Work on the third shift on Saturday and all of Sunday was assigned to train dispatchers and was sometimes performed by other employes not covered by the Agreement.

Petitioner alleges that on October 5, 12 and 19, 1957 the Yardmaster "transmitted by telephone messages of record to Maine Central Tower located at Hermon Center Maine, and to the Chief Dispatcher at Portland, Maine." On September 29, October 6, 13, 20 and 27, 1927, train dispatchers handled train orders in violation of Article XXXIV paragraph (b).

Article XXXIV (a) and (b) of the Agreement reads as follows:

"(a) No employe other than covered by this agreement and train dispatchers will be permitted to handle train orders except in cases of emergency.

(b) If train orders are handled at stations or locations where an employe covered by his agreement is employed but not on duty, the employe, if available, or can be promptly located, will be called to perform such duties and paid under the provisions of Article XVIII; if available and not called, the employe will be compensated as if he had been called."

Paragraph (a) of Article XXXIV is clear and unambiguous. Train dispatchers, as well as employes covered by the Agreement, are permitted to handle train orders. Paragraph (b) of. Article XXXIV may not be considered alone. It does not stand out as an isolated undertaking. It must be read and considered as part of the agreement, particularly in relation to paragraph (a). Paragraph (b) does not modify nor limit the rights and intent of paragraph (a). It may be considered only in relation to and upon the conditions provided in paragraph (a). In view of the clear meaning and intent of para-

graph (a) we are not permitted to give it the interpretation stressed by Petitioner. It is well known to the parties that where the contract language is clear and unambiguous we may not modify it to give it another meaning. To do so would place in jeopardy the sanctity of contracts and the process of free collective bargaining. In view of this holding we are obliged to conclude that there is no merit to the claim arising out of messages handled by train dispatchers on September 29, October 6, 13, 20 and 27, 1957. This refers specifically to items 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Petitioner's claim.

The messages telephoned by the Yardmaster to the Chief Dispatcher were not train orders and are not, therefore, covered by paragraph (b) of Article XXXIV.

It is a well established principle of this Division that since the Scope Rule of the Agreement does not define the work of the employes, it is necessary to ascertain the historical, traditional and customary practice.

Petitioner alleges that a claim for a similar message telephoned on September 14, 1957 was paid.

The record shows that Carrier "owned and operated a composite telephone circuit for many years which . . . connected the General Administration building in Bangor to the Dispatcher's offices at Houlton and at Northern Maine Junction where Superintendents were also located." Further, "usual telephone conversations, many so called reports and messages of record are telephoned by other than telegraph operators." Carrier recites in detail the operation of its communication system among all of its employes and concludes:

"Carrier contends that when the yardmaster at Northern Maine Junction telephoned the 'ABC' report to the Maine Central at Portland, it was no more than a continuation of the practice that has existed for many years in that employes telephone forms and tnessages of record without telegraph operators being expected to do this work."

One isolated claim settlement does not establish past practice. The record fails to show by a preponderance of evidence that the transmission of messages by telephone was historically, traditionally and customarily the exclusive work of the telegraphers.

For this reason, we are obliged to conclude that there is no merit to items 1 and 2 of Petitioner's claim.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole =ecord and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the parties waived oral hearing;

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 Carrier did not violate the Agreement.

AWARD