to the conductor when the latter was registering his train. He merely, instead of doing so physically, did so by placing same on the register book, where the conductor took possession of same. There was no violation of the agreement, as has been fully set forth in the well-reasoned findings of the abovementioned recent awards, and the respondent holds the claim should be denied, and urges your Board to so hold.

OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimant in this case contends that the Carrier violated the Agreement when it required him to leave certain train orders and clearance cards on the office train registry book when he went off duty, to be picked up later by the conductor of certain trains. The Petitioner maintains that the Claimant should have been permitted to personally deliver the orders and clearance cards to the conductor, despite the fact that this would have required his remaining on duty after the end of his shift, and the payment of overtime, citing Rule 15 of the Agreement, which reads as follows:

"ARTICLE 15. HANDLING TRAIN ORDERS

No employes other than covered by this schedule and train dispatchers will be permitted to handle train orders at telegraph or telephone offices where an operator is employed and is available, or can be promptly located; except in emergency, conductors or engineers will be permitted to do so, in which case the telegrapher will be paid for the call."

The Carrier, on the other hand, states that there was no violation of the rule as alleged since no one other than a telegrapher handled the train orders and, indeed, the rule itself does not require personal delivery of train orders by a telegrapher. Neither side to this controversy maintains that an emergent situation was involved on any of the dates specified.

The precise issue in this case is not new to the Board. It has been the subject of considerable controversy over an extended period of years, and was decided once again in Award No. 12240 (Referee Coburn). The specific question confronting the Board in that case was identical to the instant case. It was stated in that case as follows:

11. . . Where the standard train order rule is in effect, may the Carrier require a Telegrapher to leave train orders in a specified place for pick-up by a train crew, or must the delivery be made to the crew by the Telegrapher personally?"

"This precise issue under substantially the same facts as are present here has been dealt with by the Board in a long line of cases going back almost a quarter of a century to Award 1166 (Referee Hilliard), handed down in 1940. Eighteen out of the twenty-one cases decided have held that personal delivery by the Telegrapher to the crew is required. The three denial awards (1821, 8327, 11473) held delivery complete as to the Telegrapher when orders were placed in waybill box or other receptable for pick-up by the train crew.

It is apparent that the weight of authority, in terms of numbers of Awards and under years of consistent interpretation and application of the rule, clearly sustains Petitioner's position on the issue

and facts present here. This is not to say that the denial Awards were unsound or palpably in error. What disposes of the issue, in our opinion, is the principle of stare decisis. Where, as here, the Board is confronted with a long line of precedents which first postulate and then maintain a consistent interpretation of contract language, we should refrain from disturbing what ought to be a settled matter . . . ."

In view of the foregoing, the claim will be sustained.

That the parties waived oral hearing;

That the Agreement was violated.

AWARD