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.

Carrier desires to point out that the train orders in claim were received, copied by or delivered to an employe under the scope of the Telegraphers' agreement at Lenape, and handled by phone to train crew conductors. This is no different than usual and ordinary handling of train orders between telegraphers, towermen, etc., and conductors at many locations on Carrier's system and Carrier quotes below from Rule 217 of its Rules for the Government of the Operating Department as follows:

"To effect delivery of a train order by telephone to a train, the operator must give to the conductor, engineman or other employe addressed, the complete train order including his own last name. The employe so receiving the order must read it to the operator, sign it as 'received by . . ,', and then deliver a copy to each person addressed.

"The operator will show on his office copy of the train order the name of the person to whom delivered by telephone and the time."

Carrier submits that clearly it is neither unusual nor improper for train service employes to handle and receive train orders over a telephone and such handling does not per se violate any rules of the Telegraphers' agreement.

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.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

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