THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental )
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the Chicago Great Western Railway, that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The agreements between the parties are available to your Board and by this reference are made a part hereof.
On June 25, 1958 the train dispatcher at Oelwein issued the following train order:
The train order was addressed to No. 192 at Fair Ground and was received, copied and delivered by the telegrapher at that station. The copy of the order for train No. 91 was transmitted by the train dispatcher to the telegrapher at Stockton, Illinois on the dispatchers' telephone (carrier circuit) who, in turn transmitted by telephone (radio) to the conductor and engineer of Train No. 91. Train No. 91 left Stockton at 7:15 A. M. and was west of Stockton and east of Aiken when the train service employes handled the train order. There is a difference in opinion between the parties as to the
Carrier has established that there has been no violation of the applicable Agreement and that claimant is not entitled to the compensation claimed.
Therefore, Carrier respectfully requests that this Board deny the claim of the Employes in this matter.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claim is made on behalf of F. E. Hitchcock, senior telegrapher, that Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed to call him to perform the services of handling Train Order No. 31 on June 25, 1958. This order was sent by the train dispatcher to the agent telegrapher who in turn relayed the message by radio to the conductor and engineer of Train No. 91. There was no telegrapher on duty at the time the message was received.
Claimant takes the position that handling of train orders, which includes the copying, receiving, and delivering, is reserved to employes covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement. He relies upon a memorandum agreement referred to as Addendum No. 3 to support the position that a telegrapher available should have been used to perform this service. Paragraph two of the Addendum provides that:
Claimant maintains that the instant case does not involve an emergency or any of the three exceptions specified in the Addendum.
Carrier, on the other hand, contends that Addendum No. 3 was not violated because it applies only to telephone conversations with the dispatcher with reference to train movements. It further asserts that a train failure created an emergency which, under Addendum No. 3, permits the conductor and engineer to handle the train order. Carrier also maintains that the handling of the train order was pursuant to the long established practice under Rule 217 (b), Rules and Regulations of the Operating Department.
We regard the interpretation of paragraph two of Addendum No. 3 as the controlling provision in this issue. Award No. 10535, which involved the same parties and the interpretation of the same part of the Addendum, held:
Again in Award No. 10872, also involving the identical parties and the same provision in Addendum No. 3, the Board ruled that there was no violation of the Agreement when the order was relayed to a conductor by a telegrapher. In this dispute the train order was not received or copied by a conductor directly from a train dispatcher but was copied by a conductor at a location where a telegrapher was not employed. That award held that the Agreement was not violated when the conductor took the train orders over the telephone from the telegrapher. 12526-26 646