NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
John H. Dorsey, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
TIDE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY
(Tezas and I.ou»iana Lines)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of The
Order of Railroad Telegraphers
on
the Southern Paciftc Company, Texas sad
Louisiana Lines (Texas and New Orleans Railroad Company), that:
1. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when it
required or permitted employes not covered by the Agreement to
handle train orders as follows:
a. February 5, 1961, Order No. 236, at Shunmla, Texas.
b. April 14, 1961, Order No. 168 at Shumla, Texas.
c. May 9, 1961, Order No. 156 at Shumla, Texas.
d. May 15, 1961, Order No. 164 at Shumla, Texas.
2. Carrier shall be required to compensate an employe under
the Telegraphers' Agreement in the amount of a day's pay on each
date a violation occurred as follows:
a. February 6, 1961-L. J. Dantone
b. April 14,1981- J. W. Yarbrough
c. May 9, 1961- W. C. Chamberlain
d. May 15, 1961- L. J. Dantone.
EMPLOTES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The issue which gave rise to
the charge of agreement violation and resultant claims was created when train
service employes, not under the parties' agreement, handled (received by telephone, repeated, copied and delivered) the train orders reproduced below,
in respect to each alphabetical subsection of Part 1 of the Statement of claim,
all such occurrences taking place at Shumla, Texas:
Isas1
13495-25
377
" * * * In any event, this case involves no telegraph or telephone
ofice `where an operator is employed.' In short, the coverage of
Rule 16 simply does not reach this case. * * * "
The Carrier respectfully reiterates that the principal issue in this case
has already been decided in Third Division Award No. 7953, rendered on June
3, 1957.
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 7953 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
$y Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of April 1965.