PARTIES TO DISPUTE
THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS
NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the Norfolk and Western Railway, that:





EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The petitioner, representing the employes in the Telegraphers' class on this property, is the Order of Railroad Telegraphers and will hereinafter be referred to as Employes or ORT.

The Norfolk & Western Railway Company is the respondent and will hereinafter be referred to as Carrier.

There is in evidence an agreement by and between the parties to this dispute, effective February 16, 1958, and as otherwise amended. Copies of said agreement are, pursuant to the provision of law, assumed to be on file with your Board, and are by this reference made a part hereof.


13324-22 520

OPINION OF BOARD: The case involves the same parties, the same Agreement and the same issues as in Award No. 13323. For the reasons stated in Award No. 13323, we will deny the Claim.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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








    Claim denied.


              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of THIRD DIVISION


              ATTEST: S. H. Schulty

              Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of February 1965.
13324-23 521

          DISSENT TO AWARDS 13323 and 13324,


          DOCKETS TE-12140 AND TE-14038


In my opinion these awards are erroneous, and I am therefore compelled to dissent.


The first error is failure of the majority to recognize that work covered. by the telegraphers' agreement consists of many things in addition to "telegrapher duties" as that term is employed in the Opinion of Board in Award 13323. Obviously, little consideration was given to my dissertation on the duties of a station agent and the resulting right of such employes to perform those duties regardless of whether "telegrapher duties" are also required, even though my views were not disputed.


Further error is made manifest by failure to recognize the unique nature of the scope rule of this particular agreement, which clearly relates the coverage to positions listed in the wage scale, " . . irrespective of title by which designated or character of service performed." If the quoted language does not reserve to the employes covered the work of the positions listed-regardless of the character of service performed-as long as the work remains, then the parties were entitled to be told why.


Instead, the majority merely relies on Award 6803 which, aside from beingerroneous itself, did not deal with a scope rule such as we have here. The result is two more erroneous awards, and I dissent.


J. W. WHITEHOUSE

Labor Member