NATIONAL
RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
Daniel House, Referee
PARTIES
TO
DISPUTE:
TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES UNION
(Formerly The Order of Railroad Telegraphers)
JOINT TEXAS DIVISION of Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific
Railroad Company - Fort Worth and Denver Railway
Company (Burlington-Rock Island Railroad Company)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of The Order
of Railroad Telegraphers on the Joint Texas Division of Chicago, Rock Island
and Pacific Railroad and Fort Worth and Denver Railway, that:
1. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when on
November 11 and 18, 1960, it required or permitted Extra Gang Foreman C. M. Leazor, a person not covered by the Agreement, to handle
communications of record at Karen, Texas.
2. Because of these violations Carrier shall compensate E. R. Lummus, idle employe, November 11, 1960, in the amount of one (1)
day's pay of eight (8) hours; and Carrier shall compensate D. L. Knox,
senior idle employe, November 18, 1960, in the amount of one (1)
day's pay of eight (8) hours.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Agreement between the
parties, effective June 15, 1956, as supplemented and amended, is available to
your Board and by this reference is made a part hereof.
This dispute arose from Carrier's action of requiring or permitting Extra
Gang Foreman, C. M. Leazor, to transmit communications of record from
Karen, Texas to the Train Dispatcher. Karen is a closed station. The communications of record involved are as follows:
"(from) Karen, Texas, November 11, 1960
To-Dispatcher
Change slow order to read
MP 97 Pole 10 to MP 98 Pole 30
Passenger trains 30 MPH
Freight trains 20 MPH
/s/ C. M. Leazor."
[30]
13904-is
45
The Board must find in this docket the custom and practice has been for
many years that section forces have communicated by telephone with the
dispatcher to relay information upon which slow orders, or changes in slow
orders, may be based. Under the principles laid down in Awards 10387 and
10425, this practice should control the instant dispute.
The record of the practice on this property also completely disposes of any
contention Petitioner might make regarding Rule 1(b). Of course, there have
been no changes in the method of handling telephone conversations of the
type described herein, for many years. No work has been taken out from
under the Telegraphers' Agreement at Karen, Texas, since they never had
anyone employed at that point.
In conclusion, the Carrier asserts this claim must be denied, by reason of
the several defenses set forth herein. Restated briefly, the following necessary
conclusions require an award in favor of the Respondent:
1. Karen, Texas is a point where no telegrapher is employed, where
no telegrapher ever has been employed, and is not included within
any rule of the schedule with Telegraphers.
2. The telephone conversation between Section Foreman Lessor and
the dispatcher was not a "communication of record," but merely
an informational message which enabled the dispatcher to formulate a slow order.
3. Rule 33 of the schedule has no application to this case because
Karen is not a telephone office and the telephone conversation
was not a train order. The history of negotiating this rule shows
conclusively that the Organization failed to obtain the rule
which they now rely on for payment.
4. Previous settlements on this property, namely the withdrawal
of cases with prejudice by the Organization at blind sidings
confirms Carrier's position that this conversation did not involve
Rule violation.
5. The past practice on this property has been for many years to
permit employes other than telegraphers to engage in telephone
conversations with dispatchers from blind sidings, particularly
informational conversations regarding track conditions and
changes in slow orders.
On the basis of this record, the claim must be denied.
(Exhibits not reproduced.)
OPINION OF BOARD:
The record in this case does not contain sufficient
evidence to prove the violation claimed by Employes.
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;
13904-17
46
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 not violated.
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of October 1965.