The second approach which the ORT makes involves its allegation that the maintenance of way foreman and assistant track supervisor, when using the wayside telephones in wayside telephone booths, transmitted so-called messages of record to the telegraph offices at Greenville and Atlanta from the wayside telephone booths. Thus, while the ORT argues that so-called messages of record were sent from wayside telephones in wayside telephone booths, it argues at the same time that the so-called messages of record could be sent only from offices at Seneca and Easley. The ORT has not, on any occasion, contended that the claimants should have gone to the wayside telephones in wayside telephone booths for the purpose of telephoning the information to communications offices in Charlotte, Greenville or Atlanta. It argues to the contrary. The ORT contends that the information should have been brought to the offices at Seneca and Easley and should have been telephoned from those offices either to Greenville, Atlanta or Charlotte. These facts clearly demonstrate the absurdity of the claims and demands here made by the ORT.
When the information was received in the communications offices in Greenville and Atlanta from the foreman and assistant track supervisor, it was then converted into so-called messages and transmitted by teletype to Charlotte and Washington. Employes of the telegraphers' class or craft operated the teletype machines used in sending and receiving the messages, but on no occasion did they use the telephone in doing so.
While employes of the telegraphers' class or craft operate teletype machines installed in telegraph (communications) offices, no provision in the Telegraphers' Agreement confers upon them any contract right to transmit, receive or otherwise handle so-called messages of record.
When the maintenance of way foreman and the assistant track supervisor used the wayside telephones in the wayside telephone booths in talking to the telegraphers on duty in the communications offices in Greenville and Atlanta, they simply had ordinary telephone conversations in connection with the conduct of the Carrier's business. They were doing so in line with the practice from time immemorial-a practice recognized by the telegraphers and their representatives. Thus the conclusion is inescapable that there was no violation of the effective Telegraphers' Agreement on either date involved in the claims and demands, and there is no basis for the monetary demands here made.
The claims and demands being absurdities, and designed to do nothing more than "make work" for employes of the telegraphers' class or craft and being without basis under the plain, unambiguous language of the agreement in evidence, the Board cannot do other than make a denial award.
OPINION OF BOARD: The claims allege a violation of the effective Telegraphers' Agreement because in one instance, a Maintenance of Way Foreman, and in another, an Assistant Track Supervisor used wayside telephones located in booths on Carrier's right of way to orally request telegraphers to transmit certain detailed information to Carrier's officers relating to the progress of the work performed.
The Carrier contends and supports a long established practice under which Maintenance of Way department supervisors and foremen have used wayside telephones in transmitting to officers the daily progress of maintenance work under their supervision. The record shows, moreover, that neither the foreman nor the assistant track supervisor was at or near a telegraph or telephone office near the locations where the wayside telephones were situated. 12701--10 325
It has, therefore, not been proved that the work belonged exclusively to telegraphers by tradition, custom and practice. The absence of such a showing, given the general Scope Rule which is contained in the applicable Agreement, requires rejection of the claim (Award 12118).
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