(f) M. K. Segar, 3rd Telegrapher-Clerk, Sparks, June 30, 1959. J. B. McKnight, 3rd Telegrapher-Clerk, Fernley, June 30, 1959.

(g) R. W. Brown, Relief Telegrapher-Clerk, Sparks, July 17, 1959. T. Sever, Relief Telegrapher-Clerk, Fernley, July 17, 1959.

3. The Carrier shall, in addition to the foregoing, for each date subsequent to those set out in Items (a) through (g) above, on which employes not covered by the parties' Agreement at Hazen, Lovelock and Sparks transmit or receive messages of record over the telephone in the manner herein described, compensate the Telegraphers listed in Items (a) through (g) and/or their successors in accordance with applicable rules.

CLAIM NO. 2

1. The Carrier violated the parties' Agreement at Hazen and Lovelock, Nevada, when it permitted or required employes not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement to transmit or receive messages of record over the telephone.

2. The Carrier shall, because of the violation set forth above, compensate the following employes one special call on the date shown:

(a) E. L. Persons, 2nd Telegrapher-Clerk-PMO, Fernley, Nevada, May 11, 1959.

(b) M. K. Seger, 1st Telegrapher-Clerk Towerman, Lovelock, for one special call May 11, 1959.

CLAIM NO. 3

1. The Carrier violated the parties' Agreement at Hazen, Nevada and Ogden, Utah, when it permitted or required employes not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement to transmit or receive messages of record over the telephone.

2. The Carrier shall, because of the violation set out above, compensate E. L. Persons, regularly assigned 2nd Telegrapher-Clerk, Fernley, Nevada, and J. N. Dockter, 2nd Telegrapher-Clerk-PMO, Ogden, Utah, one special call for July 17, 1959.

Hourly Rate

"Location Title of Position of Pay

Hazen Agent-Telegrapher $1.77

Hazen 2nd Telegrapher-Clerk 1.6675

Hazen 3rd Telegrapher-Clerk 1.6675

foreman covering instruction from former as to crews to be called by latter did not involve the Telegraphers' Agreement.

The facts in this claim readily establish that the telephone conversations, involved in this claim did not involve or contravene any provision of the current agreement. The conversations were purely an exchange of information. pertinent to the normal functioning of the Maintenance of Way and Structures, Department and the Timekeeping Bureau and in no manner involved the craft here making claim.

This claim is obviously invalid in its entirety; but even if it were valid, the penalty allowable would be at the straight time rate and not at the overtime rate claimed-see Awards 7094, 7222, 7239, 7242 and 7316, to cite a few.

CONCLUSION

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.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: There are three claims.

In Claim No. 1 a Burrow Crane Operator telephoned the Roadmaster's office and advised the number of hours worked by Extra Gang No. 1 so that proper payroll records be kept. Also an Assistant Welding Supervisor from the Automotive and Work Equipment Department at Sparks, Nevada, telephoned from Hazen and advised the number of hours worked by the Automotive and Work Equipment Department employes.

These are not communications of record. They are not concerned with the movement of trains nor with the safety of persons and property. There is no evidence in the record to show that this type of message belongs exclusively to employes under the Agreement by history, custom and practice on the property.

In Claim No. 2 a Burrow Crane Operator telephoned a Roadmaster's Clerk and advised him that three cars of ribbon rail had been unloaded and were ready to be released for immediate movement.

Claim No. 3 involves telephone conversations concerning payroll records.

Neither the conversations involved in Claim No. 2 nor in Claim No. 3 are communications of record. They did not relate to the operation of trains nor with the safety of persons and property. Petitioner has produced no evidence to show that this type of communications is such work which by history, tradition, custom and practice belongs exclusively to employes covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement.

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 Carrier did not violate the Agreement.

AWARD