OPINION OF BOARD: On July 22, 1960, Carrier abolished the second trick telegrapher position at Morton, Minnesota. After that time, the first trick agent telegrapher, at the close of his tour of duty at 3:30 P. M., was asked to put train orders and clearance cards for train No. 98 in a sealed envelope to be placed outside the office window. This envelope was then later picked up by the train crew to which it was addressed.

The agent telegrapher at Morton, Mr. C. F. Johnson, claims that Carrier violated the scope of the Agreement because Carrier does not permit him to deliver train orders personally at Morton. Mr. Johnson maintains that this work of handling train orders, which includes personal delivery to the trains, is work reserved exclusively to employes covered by the Agreement. Claimant asserts that Carrier's recognition that this work is exclusively reserved to telegraphers is shown by the fact that on Monday, his rest day, he is given a call to handle train orders. Mr. Johnson calls particular attention to Paragraph (a) (3) of the Scope Rule which provides that changes in the manner of handling train orders shall not lead to removal of that work from the Agreement.

Carrier counters with the argument that the Scope Rule contains no requirement that telegraphers must personally and physically deliver train

orders, and that the Agreement does not contain the standard train order rule, or any other rule reserving the handling of train orders exclusively to telegraphers. Furthermore, Carrier contends that there has been no change in the manner of handling train orders and therefore Paragraph (a) (3) is not applicable.

Scope Rule (a) (1) lists the positions of employes who may handle train orders, but does not reserve this work exclusively to telegraphers. Moreover, the Agreement does not include a standard train order rule granting exclusive right to this work to these employes. Claimant's interpretation that the phrase "handling of train orders" in the Scope requires personal and physical delivery of train orders by telegraphers to the train crew, is equivalent to saying that telegraphers must be on duty when train No. 98 arrives, or receive payment for the work.

The Scope Rule includes no statement that telegraphers must deliver train orders personally. When the telegrapher deposited the train order as requested by Carrier, his responsibility ended. No person not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement was involved in the handling of the train order between the time that the telegrapher deposited the envelope addressed to the train crew, and its receipt by some member of the train crew. Since personal delivery of train orders is not part of the Agreement, it cannot be considered as work removed from under this Agreement. Hence, Rule (a) (3) of the Scope was not violated.

With respect to Claimant's contention that because on Monday, his assigned rest day, he is given a call to handle train orders, at which time he delivered the orders, allegedly proving that this work belongs exclusively to telegraphers, we find that he delivered the train orders as part of his routine because he happened to be present. Claimant's performance of this duty on his rest day does not prove that it is exclusively reserved to telegraphers. Furthermore, there is evidence that on some occasions, when the telegrapher was on duty and otherwise occupied, the train orders were picked up by members of the train crew.

The record discloses that on the property, Claimant cited a violation of an operating rule requiring personal delivery of train orders. Such a rule is not part of the Agreement but is one of the prerogatives of management, which may be changed at Carrier's discretion, as was done in the instant case, when Carrier informed the telegrapher not to deliver the train orders in person.

We find that the Scope does not require that telegraphers make personal delivery of train orders, and that the Agreement was not violated.

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 the Carrier did not violate the Agreement.

AWARD