NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(SuppIementaI)
Lee R. West, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS
ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of The
Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway, that:
1. Carrier violated its agreement with the employes represented
by The Order of Railroad Telegraphers when at 7:25 P. M., May 5,
1961, it caused, required or permitted a clerk at Aurora, Missouri, to
perform the work of a telegrapher at Aurora, a station at which a
telegrapher is employed but who was not on duty.
2. Carrier shall now compensate M.^. H. A. Atwell, AgentTelegrapher, Aurora, an amount equivalent to one two-hour call
under the Agreement, a total of $8.31.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The current Agreement between the parties provides the following:
"ARTICLE 1.
(1) Employes, except train dispatchers, who are required by
direction of officer in charge to handle train orders, block or report
trains, receive or forward written messages by telegraph, telephone
or mechanical telegraph machines (defined as telegraphers, telephone
operators, block operators, operators of mechanical telegraph machines, agent-telegraphers, agent-telephoners), agents, assistant
agents, ticket agents, assistant ticket agents and car distributors,
listed in appended wage scale, also tower and train directors, towermen, levermen, staffmen, are covered by this Agreement and are
hereinafter collectively referred to as employes, and when so referred
to, all are included."
The following Agreement is also currently in effect:
[192]
12643 -17
508
fied
the Organization on August 23, 1961, that it had been unable to locate
any record of the alleged written message. See Carrier's Exhibit A-4.
In conclusion, the Carrier has shown that the reported communication
between the clerical employe and the train dispatcher, if anything, was nothing more than conversation, was not a receipt or forwarding of a written
message, and for any and all reasons outlined herein, the claim of the Employes is without merit or Agreement support, and the Carrier requests the
Board to deny the claim in its entirety.
(Exhibits not
reproduced.)
OPINION OF BOARD:
In support of the claim made herein, the
Organization alleges that on May 5, 1961, the Yard Clerk at Aurora, Missouri, telephoned the Train Dispatcher at Springfield, and transmitted the
following message:
"We have
4 cars for No. 31 and there may be more later when
switcher comes in. We have 4 loads and 3 empties for No. 36."
They then contend that such work is reserved to the telegraphers under
their Scope Rule:
The Carrier
denies that such communication occurred as alleged and
denies that the agreement has been violated.
The Organization asserts that such clerk was questioned by a telegrapher who overheard the entire transaction. However, no
statement or other
evidence of such telegrapher is included in the record. In fact, no evidence of
any kind is offered in support of the alleged act. Inasmuch as the Organization had the burden of proving alleged acts which are denied, their failure
to do so is cause for denying the claim.
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 has not been violated.
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of June 1964.