NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY
(Temaa and Louisiana Line)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of The
Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and
Louisiana (Texas and New Orleans Railroad), that:
1. The Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties
hereto when it permitted or required employes not covered by said
Agreement to handle (receive, copy and deliver) train orders at the
station location and on the dates hereinafter set forth:
Train
Station Date Order No. Addressed to
Claim No. 1 Malvado Feb. 5,1961 200 C&E No. 242
Claim No. 2 Mofeta, Tex. Feb. 5,1961 228 C&E No. 244
Claim No. 3 Hacienda Feb.18,1961 176 C&E Extra 607 East
Claim No. 4 Comstock Feb. 23,1961 151 C&E No. 250
Claim No. 5 Mofeta, Tex. Mar. 4,1961 153 C&E No. 153
Claim No. 6 Chispa Mar. 15,1961 25 C&E Extra 616 West
Claim No. 7 Collado Mar. 15,1961 26 C&E No. 244
Claim No. 8 Dunlay Mar. 19,1961 209 & 210 C&E Extra 436 West.
2. The Carrier shall, because of the violations set out In Item
x
above, compensate the following idle employes on the San Antonio
Seniority District for one day's pay (8) hours at the pro xata te1eg.
raphers' rate on the Ban Antonio District:
Claim No. I -- Mrs. C. C. Clark
Claim No. 2 - $. H. Underwood
Claim No. 3 -J. H. Gowens
Claim No. 4 -- W. C. Chamberlin
Claim No. 5 - Mrs. C. C. Clark
Claim No. 6-E. B. Calderon
Claim No. 7 = It. N. Rose
Claim No. 8 - R. G. Green
E327]
13494---2B
352
CONCLUSION
The Carrier has shown that this claim is without merit and should be
denied, first because there was no rule violated, second there was no rule to
support the claim, and third, there has been a train order rule in the Conductors' Agreement while nine Telegraphers' Agreements have been negotiated and the Telegraphers' Train Order Rule was readopted.
Carrier asserts, all conditions present in Award 7963 are present in this
case and that the denial in that case is clearly controlling here, and respectfully requests that the claim be in all things denied.
OPINION OF BOARD: The issues, parties and Agreement involved in
this Claim are the same as in Award No. 13491. For the reasons stated in
that Award we will deny this Claim.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the
whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
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
That Carrier did not violate the Agreement.
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of April 1985.