NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY
(Pacific Lines)
Carrier has conclusively shown herein the claim is unwarranted and totally lacking in merit, and if not dismissed for lack of proper notice to other interested parties, Carrier asks that it be denied.
In claim No. 1 a Signal Supervisor in Tucson, Arizona, telephoned the following information to a Signal Maintainer at Wellton, Arizona.
This telephone message has nothing to do with the direction of train operations or safety of persons and property. See Award 12122. Petitioner has failed to show that this type of communication was historically and traditionally reserved to Telegraphers.
In claim No. 2 a Signal Department official telephoned the following message to the Signal Supervisor's Office at Tucson, Arizona.
Petitioner contends that claim No. 2 should be sustained on the basis ,of Award No. 8329. The claim in Docket No. TE-7393, which was determined in Award No. 8329, is not similar to the claim in this Docket. There, a Signal Maintainer at Findlay, Ohio, telephoned a telegrapher at Lima, Ohio to relay the communication to the Superintendent at Muncie, Signal Supervisor at Frankfort, and the Maintenance Foreman at South Lima. We said in Award 8329:
In the dispute arising out of Claim No. 2 the message was from a Signal Department official to the Signal Supervisor's office. It was a report to the Supervisor giving reason for the delay. It was a report of the investigation. In this sense, it is the same as a report of completed repairs which caused the delay. This communication did not concern the operation of the train. It is to be noted that the message was sent on December 31, 1958 and refers to a delay which occurred on December 23. It is merely an informational report. 12609-26 570
In Claim No. 3 a Bulldozer Operator at Wellton telephoned the following message to the Roadmaster's Office at Yuma:
This is not a communication of record. It is not concerned with the operation of trains or safety of persons and property. There is no evidence in the record that this type of message is historically, traditionally and customarily reserved to employes covered by the Agreement.
For the reasons herein stated, we conclude that there is no merit to any of the claims.
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