Therefore, for these reasons, aside from other controlling features, the instant claims are without merit and should be denied.

In order to avoid congestion in the Perishable Diversion Agent's office at the closing time for diversions and also to allow sufficient time for further handling in event of errors and subsequent diversions, the prompt handling of such diversion orders is mandatory and it is for these reasons that the exclusive right of handling them has never been vested in the craft of telegraphers by either rule or practice.

In summary it is the Carrier's position simply that (1) neither by rule or practice has the exclusive right to handle perishable diversion orders been considered within the scope of the ORT Agreement and, (2) if this confirmation had been re-transmitted by the telegraphers it would have been done by the second shift operator during his regular tour of duty and not by Claimant on a call.

OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant T. A. Foster occupied the position of Ticket Agent Operator during the hours of 8:00 A. M. to 4:00 P. M. at Orlando, Florida. A Ticket Clerk Operator with the hours from 5:00 P. M. to 1:00 A. M. was also assigned to the station. On January 16, at about 4:00 P. M., Clerk Mrs. E. A. Hansen in the Traffic Department of the Assistant General Freight Agent at Orlando, Florida, received information from a shipper ordering diversion of 20 cars of citrus fruit from Orlando to other destinations. Mrs. Hansen requested Trainmaster E. M. Jordan to authorize Ticket Agent Operator Foster to work overtime in order to transmit these diversion messages to Hamlet Yard, North Carolina. This request was not granted, and Mrs. Hansen was directed to telephone the messages herself to Hamlet Yard. On January 17 at about 4:50 P. M. she transmitted by telephone 13 additional diversion messages. The confirmations of these transmissions of both dates were mailed to the Perishable Diversion Agent. Claim is made that Carrier violated the terms of the Telegraphers Agreement when it assigned Clerk Hansen to transmit the perishable diversion messages by telephone at a time when the telegraphic office at Orlando was closed, but the Agent Operator was available for call service.

Petitioner argues that the work handling communications at Orlando, Florida belongs exclusively to employes covered by the Telegraphers Agreement. It maintains that the Scope Rule set forth the class of positions which deals with communications; and since the work in question concerns messages of record, this work belongs to the Telegrapher Agent. It also asserts that since 1943 this type of communication was handled by the Telegrapher Agent on an overtime basis. It points out that when the Agent is not on duty the practice is for the clerk to send the diversion messages by means of telephone and then the forms are filed at the Telegraphers office for transmission at a later time. This practice was not followed in the instant case.

Carrier denies the claim on the grounds that these diversion messages were not concerned with train movements and, therefore, are not encompassed within the Scope Rule. It maintains that the transmission of diversion messages never was performed solely by Telegraphers, but at Orlando and at other points was work performed interchangeably by Telegraphers and Clerks.

We note that Carrier asserts a practice at Orlando and other points on the North and South Florida divisions for other than operators to send diversion information to the perishable diversion agents at Hamlet Yard during

the perishable season. The record, however, shows that since 1943 the Telegrapher Agent handled these messages on an overtime basis. Furthermore, we find that at Orlando during the perishable season when the agent was not on duty, it was the practice for the clerk to telephone the diversion information to Hamlet Yard, and then to file the form at the Telegrapher Agent's office for that employe to transmit the confirmation message. These long-standing practices point up that both parties regarded the transmission of messages as Telegrapher Agent work. Apparently the clerk took this view, too, for on January 16 when the Agent was still available, at about 4:00 P. M., she consulted with the Trainmaster for permission to authorize Claimant T. A. Foster to work overtime. She did not routinely take on this job when a Telegrapher Agent was available. We find, therefore, that when Clerk Hansen transmitted the diversion messages but failed to file the forms at the Telegrapher's office for the Agent's transmission, the established practice was violated. Even though the clerk relayed the message by telephone, the practice of filing the message at the Telegrapher Agent's office for the Agent to later confirm it, indicates a recognition that the work belongs to the Telegrapher. Under these circumstances, we hold that the Agreement was violated.

Although the claim is sustained in its first part, we do not find an adequate basis for compensation on a call basis for Mr. Foster as requested in the second part of the claim. The compensation is, therefore, denied.

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 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 Agreement of the parties was violated.

AWARD