NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
John A. Dorsey, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY
(Texas and Louisitana Vaes)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of The
Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the Southern Pacific Company (Texas &
Louisiana Lines), that:
Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when it
required or permitted train Conductors to handle train orders on
the dates and at the locations shown below, for which Carrier sball
now be required to pay each claimant, whose name is shown opposite each violation date and location, the amount specified therefor:
Claim
Carrier's Amount
File No. Date Location Claimant Hours Rate
TE-61-71 5/13/61 Marion, Texas S. J. Imburgin 8 Pro Rata
TE-61-92 6/26/61 Withers, Texas B. D. Jones 8 Time & lfi
TE-61-90 6/23/61 Odlaw, Texas D. I. Nance 8 Time & lie
TE-61-89 6/24/61 Devil's River, Tex. H. Wood 8 Time
& 1/i
TE-61-86 6/26/61 Devil's River, Tex. E. J. Looper 8 Time & 'h
TE-61-91 6/27(61 Devil's River, Tex. B. T. Winn 8 Time & %
TE-61-83 6/18/61 Feely, Texas lI. Wood 8 Pro Rata
TE-61-84 6/22/61 Comstock, Texas W. C. Chamberlain 8 Pro Rata
TE-61-88 6/26/61 Comstock, Texas J. L. Dantone 8 Time & ',sz
TE-61-98 7/ 3161 Lull, Texas E. J. Looper 8 Time
& 1/z
TE-61-81 6/12/61 Shumla, Texas J. L. Dantone 8 Pro Rata
TE-61-99 7/14161 Pumpville, Texas J. F. Ybarra 8 Time & lii
TE-61-102 6/29/61 Pumpville, Texas W. C. CbamberIain 8 Time
& 1
A:
TE-61-80 5119161 Malvado, Texas J. W. Yarbrough 8 Pro Rata
TE-61-87 6/19/61 Malvado, Texas J. R. Harris 8 Time & s
TE-61-101 7/11/61 Malvado, Texas J. R. Harris 8 Time & '/f
.
TE-61-82 6118/61 Shaw, Texas G. C. Clark 8 Pro Rata
TE-61-96 7/ 2/61 Mofeta, Texas S. H. Underwood 8 Time & %a
TE-61-75 4/ 5/61 Altuda, Texas O. E. Hilbrich 8 Time
& W
TE-61-62 4/ 8/61 Nopal, Texas H. L. Bell 8 Time & %
TE-61-79 5/10/61 Quebec, Texas E. B. Calderon 8 Pro Rata
TE-61-110 7121/61 Bola, Texas J. D. Jones 8 Time & 'fi
[3781
13496-4s
425
respectfully request that the Board review the history outlined therein, which
clearly supports the Carrier's position is the instant case.
CONCLUSION
Carrier has shown that this claim is without merit and should be denied
because:
1. There has been no rule violated.
2. There is no rule to support the claim.
8. There has been a train order rule in the Conductors' Agreement
in full force and effect during the time that nine Telegraphers'
Agreements have been negotiated end when Telegraphers' Train
Order Rule was readopted.
4. The practice of employes other than telegraphers handling trains
orders has been in effect for at least fifty years.
6. Awards of the Third Division dictate a denial award in this case,
and particularly in case Award 7953, as all conditions present
in Award 7959 are present in this case, and that the denial in.
that case, Award 7965, is clearly controlling here.
6. That employee are attempting to seek a new rule (which, they
have not been able to secure by negotiation) which is not a
function of the Board to grant under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act.
For the reasons stated above, this case is entirely devoid of merit or
validity, and should be 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 is
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 respect-tively 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 1966.