NATIONAL. RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
John H. Dorsey, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY
(Texas and Louisiana Lines)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the General Committee of The
Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the Southern Pacifta Lines in Texas and
Louisiana (T&WO Railroad Company), that:
1. The Carrier violated an 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 locations and on the dates hereinafter set forth:
Claim Train Order
No. Station Date No. Addressed To
1. Moteta, Texas July 1, 61 151 Extra 457 East
2. Comstock, Texas Aug. 21, 61 164 Extra 435 West
8. Devils River, Tex. Oct. 7, 61 174 Extra SSW 959 East
4. Malvado, Texas Nov. 6, 61 172 Extra 417 West
(care of Conductor
Casey)
5. Shaw, Texas Nov. 6, 61 165 No. 250
6. Mofeta, Texas Nov. 6, 61 170 Extra 421 East
7. Shaw, Texas Nov. 7, 61 195 First 246
8. Malvado, Texas Nov. 13, 61 183 No. 246
9. Shaw, Texas Dec. 10, 61 176 Extra 625 East
10. Pumpviile, Texas Dec. 19, 61 173 Extra 360 East
11. Devils River, Tex. Dec. 30, 61 172 Extra 437 East
12. Pumpville, Texas Dec. 30, 61 152 Extra 437 East
13. Comstock, Texas Jan. 19, 62 167 Extra 453 West
14651
13498-2
466
2. The Carrier shall, because of the violations set out in Part 1
hereof, compensate the following named employes, idle on their respective rest days, a day's pay, eight (8) hours, at the time and
one-half rate:
Claim No. Claimant
1 and 9 Mrs. C. C. Clark
2, 6, and 8 L. J. Dantone
3 and 11 Herman Woods
4 Mrs. E. J. Looper
6 J. U. Huey
7 and 10 O. G. Noriega
12 and 13 J. W. Yarbrough
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is in evidence an Agreement by and between the parties hereto effective December 1, 1946, and as
amended.
There are, as the Statement of Claim indicates, 13 disputes involving
the handling of train orders by employes outside the scope of the parties'
Agreement. Each claim was handled separately on the property. However,
since all of the claims have common aspects, viz., the subject matter of the
violations, locations, and rules, the Employes have as a means of eliminating repetitious argument and handling, and in the interest of brevity, incorporated all of these disputes into this submission.
GENERAL FACTS
The station locations involved in this appeal are on Carrier's Del Rio Subdivision. For your Board's ready reference, we attach hereto and make a part
hereof ORT Exhibit A, which is page 4 of Carrier's Timetable No. 1 of the
Del Rio Subdivision. It may be noted that this Timetable schedule shows First,
Second, Third and Fourth Class trains. Extra trains, i.e., trains not authorized
by Timetable schedule are operated by train orders. All except three (3) of
the train orders handled (received, copied and delivered) by employes outside
the scope of the parties' Agreement was in connection with the operation of
extra trains.
It may be also noted from the Timetable that Sanderson, Texas, is located
at Milepost 607, whereas Del Rio, Texas, is located at Milepost 878.6. The
distance between the two stations being 128.4 miles.
At page 8 of the Supplemental Wage Scale (Rule 37 of the current
Agreement) are listed the positions on the Del Rio Subdivision (San Antonio Division Seniority District). For your ready reference, we hereinafter
reproduce the position listings Del Rio to and including Sanderson:
13498--49
513
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 and when Telegraphers' Train Order Rule was readopted.
4. The practice of employes other than telegraphers handling .
train orders has been in effect for at least fifty years.
li. Awards of the Third Division dictate a denial award in this
case, and particularly in Case Award 7953, as all conditions
present in Award 7953 are present in this case and that the
denial in that case, Award 7958, is clearly controlling here.
6. That employes 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. 18491. 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 respeoLively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act,
as approved June 21, 1984;
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. Scbulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of April 1965.