NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Harold M. Weston, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES UNION
(Formerly The Order of Railroad Telegraphers)
NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD -SOUTHERN DISTRICT
(Ohio Central Division)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of The Order
of Railroad Telegraphers on the New York Central Railroad, (Western District) that:
1. Article 22 of the Agreement was violated when the Carrier
ordered the agent-operator at Fultonham, Ohio, to copy orders for a
train and said train orders to whom addressed were placed in a box
and the conductor of the train picked up the orders at about 10:30
P. M., at which time no employe under our Agreement was present.
2. On the below named dates, the violation of the Agreement
occurred when the conductor received train orders approximately 10:30
P. M., from a box located in or near Fultonham, Ohio, which is listed
as a train order station. Each claimant to receive two hours' pay for
each date as provided in Article 5 of the Agreement:
R. E. Hines, regularly assigned, for the following dates:
June 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,
27 and 28, 1960;
July 1 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29, 1960;
August 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, 1960; and
W. H. Dunfee, for the following dates: July 5, 6, 7, 8, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15, 1960.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS:
At Fultonham, Ohio the Carrier
has a negotiated position of agent-operator owned and assigned to Mr.
R. E. Hines. On the dates in question in June, July and August of 1960, the
Carrier required the agent-operator at Fultonham, Ohio to copy train orders
for a train that was regularly called for 10:30 P. M. every evening. Claimant
Hines and Claimant Dunfee, who relieved Claimant Hines on certain days in
1648]
13870-11
658
OPINION OF BOARD:
The question at issue in the present case is
whether or not the controlling Agreement provides for payment of a "call"
when a telegrapher, in the absence of an emergency, is required to leave train
orders in a specified place for a crew to pick up after the telegrapher has gone
off duty.
Article 22 of the Agreement is the standard time order rule. It stipulates,
in pertinent part, as follows:
"No employes other than covered by this agreement and train
dispatchers will be permitted to handle train orders at telegraph or
telephone offices where an operator is employed and is available or
can be promptly located, except in an emergency, in which case the
telegrapher will be paid for the call."
Substantially the same question and rule have been considered by this
Board on numerous prior occasions during the past twenty-five years. With
few exceptions (notably Awards 1821, 8327 and 11473), the awards have
sustained the Organization's position that a "call" must be paid under the
facts and rule present here. (See, among many others, Awards 1168, 2928,
5013, 8657, 11653, 11788, 12240, 12967 and 13712.)
No valid reason is perceived for deviating in this case from the course
that has been chartered by the great weight of authority on the question and,
in line with Award 11788, the claim will be sustained.
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 Agreement was violated.
AWARD
Claim sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of September 1965.