Montchanin, Del., was not an open telegraph office when these train orders were issued. Secondly, the rule required that the operator employed at the location be available or can be promptly located. As stated hereinbefore, at all times in claim Mr. Meyer was either employed at Lenape, Pa., or was enroute to Montchanin, Del. Carrier maintains, therefore, that he could not be considered either available or promptly locatable for the purpose of handling train orders at Montchanin, Del., under the provisions of Article 34.

In the handling and discussion of the instant claim on the property,

the Organization with respect to the handling of train orders also referred to an alleged violation of Article 1-Scope of the agreement, which reads as follows:

"This Agreement will govern the employment and rates of pay of agents (freight and ticket as shown in the wage schedule), assistant agents, agent-telegraphers, agent-telephoners, telegraphers, telegrapher-clerks, telephoner-clerks, telephone operators (except telephone switchboard operators), towerman, leverman, tower and/or train directors, block operators, staffmen, managers of telegraph offices, wire chiefs, and operators of teletype and other mechanical machines used for transmitting and receiving communications of record, all of whom are hereinafter referred to as employes."

With reference to the application of Article 1 to the facts in this dispute, it is the position of Carrier that the scope rule merely lists the various classes of employes whom the Organization is certified and designated to represent under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, and who are covered by the rules of the collective bargaining agreement. It does not spell out or purport to specify any of the duties of the various occupations listed therein, nor does it, by its terms, restrict the rights of the Carrier. Carrier submits that Article 34 is a specific rule with respect to the handling of train orders and maintains, as pointed out hereinbefore, that it does not support the claim of the Organization with respect to the handling of train orders.

It is the Carrier's position that all dates in claim train orders were issue by Carrier's train dispatcher to the operator at Coatesville, the nearest open tower, to effect delivery by telephone to the crew at Montchanin, which handling did not violate any rules of agreement with the Telegraphers' Organization.

Further, Carrier desires to point out that this is a claim for penalty only and the Board has ruled in many cases that it will not penalize a Carrier in the absence of a specific rule violation. Here in this docket, there has been no violation of the specific rule-Article 34-which refers to the handling of train orders and, therefore, Carrier maintains that there is clearly no equitable basis in the rules to inflict upon Carrier the penalty here claimed.

Under all the facts and circumstances present in this docket, Carrier respectfully submits that there has been no violation of any rules of its agreement with the Telegraphers' Organization and maintains that the claim of the Organization should be denied in its entirety.

OPINION OF BOARD: The facts, contentions of the parties, and reasoning of the Board in this case are so similar to those presented in Award

That the parties waived oral hearing;

That the Agreement was violated.

AWARD