.44w9n.
Award No. 14300
Docket No. TE-13235
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Arthur Stark, 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 Joint Texas Division of Chicago, Rock
Island & Pacific Railroad & Fort Worth Denver Railway, that:
1. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when
on October
16, 1960,
it required or permitted Engineer May of
Extra 1252 South, a person not covered by the Agreement, to handle
Train Order No. 18 at Doric, Texas.
2. Because of this violation Carrier shall compensate F. L.
Rouse, extra employe, in the amount of one (1) days pay of eight
(8) hours.
3. Carrier violated .the Agreement between the parties when
on October
20, 1960,
it required or permitted Conductor Posey of
Extra
1231
South, a person not covered by ,the Agreement, to handle
Train Order No. 74 at Flynn, Texas.
4. Because of this violation Carrier shall compensate D. L.
Knox, senior idle employe on October 20,
1960,
in the amount of
one (1) days pay of eight (8) hours.
5. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when
on October 21,
1960,
it required or permitted train service employes
on Extra 867 North, persons not covered by the Agreement, to handle
Train Order No. 72 at Karen, Texas.
6.
Because of this violation Carrier shall compensate N. L.
Cryar, idle employe on October 21, 1960, in the amount of one (1)
days pay of eight (8) hours.
7. Carrier violated .the Agreement between the parties when
on October 21, 1960, it required or permitted Engineer Bendy of
Extra 1205 South, a person not covered by the Agreement, to handle
Train Order No. 79 at Flynn, Texas.
8. Because of this violation Carrier shall compensate E. R.
Lummus, idle employe on October 21, 1960, in the amount of one
(1) days pay of eight (8) hours.
9. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when
on November 11, 1960, it required or permitted the Engineer on
Train No. 75, a person not covered by the Agreement, to handle
Train Order No. 14 at Dobbin, Texas.
10. Because of this violation Carrier shall compensate N. L.
Cryar, senior idle employe on November 11, 1960, in the amount of
one (1) days pay of eight (8) hours.
11. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when
on November 13, 1960, it required or permitted a train service
employe of Extra 851 North, a person not covered by .the Agreement, to handle Train Order No. 30 at Ventura, Texas.
12. Because of this violation Carrier shall compensate G.
McDonald, senior idle employe on November 13, 1960, in the amount
of one (1) days pay of eight (8) hours.
13. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when
on November 16, 1960, it required or permitted Engineer Ham of
Extra 1235 North, a person not covered by the Agreement, to handle
Train Order No. 41 at Dobbin, Texas.
14. Because of this violation Carrier shall compensate P. C.
Friend, senior idle employe on November 16, 1960, in the amount of
one (1) days pay of eight (8) hours.
15. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when
on November 17, 1960, it required or permitted Engineer Fulton of
Extra 1219 North, a person riot covered by the Agreement, to handle
Train Order No. 49 at Dobbin, Texas.
16. Because of this violation Carrier shall comte D. L.
Knox, senior idle employe on November 17, 1960, in .the amount
of one (1) days pay of eight (8) hours.
17. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when
on November 24, X1960, it required or permitted a train service employe of Train No. 98, a person not covered by the Agreement, to
handle Train Order No. 60 at North Corsicana, Texas.
18. Because of this violation Carrier shall compensate F. L.
Rouse, idle extra employe on November 24, 1960, in the amount of
one (1) days pay of eight (8) hours.
19. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when
on November 9 and 10, 1960, it required Conductors, persons not
covered by the Agreement, to handle Train Orders at Singleton,
54300 2
Texas, at times the AgentTelegmpher was not on duty at that
station.
20. Because of these violations Carrier shall compensate
Robert M. Hollis, Agent-Telegrapher at Singleton, Texas on the
above dates in the amount of a call allowance for each day, November
9 and 10, 1960.
21. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when
on November 18, 1960, it required or permitted a Conductor, a
person not covered by .the Agreement, to handle Train Order No.
58 and on December 3, 1960, it required or permitted a Conductor
to handle Train Orders No. 33 and 34, at Singleton, Texas, at times
when the Agent-Telegrapher was not on duty at that station.
22. Because of these violations Carrier shall compensate
Robert M. Hollis, Agent-Telegrapher at Singleton on November 18,
1960, ·in the amount of a call allowance; and Carrier shall compensate G. L. Ahngtedt, Agent-Telegrapher at Singleton on December
3, 1960, in the amount of a call allowance.
23. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when
on February 18, 1961, it required or permitted a member of the
train crew of Extra 854 North, a person not covered by the Agreement, to handle Train Order No. 5 at Bardwell, Texas, at a time
the Agent-Telegrapher was not on duty at that station.
24.. Because of this violation Carrier shall compensate R. B.
Starr, Agent-Telegrapher at Bardwell, Texas, on February 18, 1961,
in the amount of a call allowance.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Agreement between the
parties, effective .Tune 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 train
and/or engine service employes, persons not covered by the Agreement, to
handle train orders. In paragraphs 1 through 18 of Statement of Claim,
these violations occurred at places where no telegrapher is employed. In
paragraphs 19 through 24, the violations occurred at places a telegrapher is
employed, but not on duty at the times train orders involved were handled
by persons not covered by the Agreement,
A sampling of the train orders involved follow:
"October 20, 1960
Train Order No. 74
To C&E Extra 1231 North at Flynn
Order No. 68 is annulled
Extra 857 South wait at Newly until 1240 AM for Extra 12311
North,
/s/ PIT (Dispatcher)
Complete 1106 PM To Conductor Posey,"
14300 3
not available within the time limit provided by Rule 33, by conductors,
enginemen and other employes examined on Operating Rules prevailed without question or dispute until some claims were filed in :1957, which were
settled on the property and that did not change this accepted practice, which
will be more specifically referred to later in this Submission.
The current agreement with The Order of Railroad Telegraphers, effective June 15, 1956, is on file with the Board and by this reference .is made a
part of this Submission.
OPINION OF BOARD:
The claims in this case involve two sets of
circumstances which the Petitioner contends constitute violation of the parties'
agreement: (1) The copying of train orders by train service employes at
six locations where telegraphers are not
employed; and
(2),.the copying of
train orders by train service employes on four occasions at two stations where
telegraphers are
employed, but were not on duty at the time the orders were
handled.
Rules 1 and 33 of the agreement must be considered in disposing of this
dispute. Rule 1 is the Scope Rule which, in paragraph (ib), provides that
improvements or changes in the manner of handling train orders will not serve
to remove that work out from under the agreement.
Rule 33 is a variant of the so-called standard ,train order rule that has
been the subject of many awards of this Board. The language used by these
parties departs considerably from that of the standard rule. The rule provides in pertinent part:
°(a) No employes, except those covered by this agreement
and train dispatchers, will be permitted to handle train orders at
points where telegraph and telephone offices are located except in
emergency, in which case the telegrapher or telephoner, if not on
duty but available for duty and can respond within twenty minutes
from time called, will be paid for a call under the provisions of Rule
5."
Both parties have presented a large amount of argumentation that is
entirely
irrelevant or
plainly erroneous. We will confine our decision to the
issues presented by the facts and application of the two rules mentioned.
In order to bring about application of Rule 1 (b), it must be shown. that
the acts complained of amount to
improvement or
change in the manner of
handling train orders. Since no such showing has been made, we cannot say
that this portion of the rule has been violated.
Otherwise, the
Scope Rule is general in nature and the extent to which
it was intended to reserve train order work to telegraphers must be established
by competent proof. The record is devoid of such proof; consequently the
disposition of
these claims
must be based entirely on Rule 33, which relates
specifically to the handling of train orders.
We are unable to agree with the Employes' contention that the reference
to telegraph and telephone offices was meant to make the rule applicable to
any place where a telephone is located. Such an interpretation would be
inconsistent with other language of the rule, and thus contrary to the rule
14300 6
of construction requiring that .recognition and value be given to every word
used.
It follows that since Rule 313 has no application to those claims arising
at places where no telegraph or itelephone office is located, and since the
Employes have not proved that violation of any other portion of the Agreement occurred at such places, we must reject the claims involved in Items 1
through 18 of the Statement o8 Claim.
In the cases covered by Items 19 through 24 of the Statement of Claim,
train orders were handled by train service employes on three occasions at
Singleton, and once at Bardwell. Telegraph or telephone offices are located
at both stations, but the telegraphers were not on duty at the times involved.
Rule 33 (a) plainly applies to these four claims.
This Rule clearly prohibits the use of employes other than telegraphers
and train dispatchers to handle train orders at such places except in case
of emergency. Under this rule it is incumbent upon the Carrier to show
that an emergency was involved so as to justify its use of train service employes to handle the train orders. In this record Carrier has failed to provide any facts to support its position concerning alleged emergencies. Therefore, we must hold that Rule 33 (a) was violated.
For reasons stated, Claims 1 through 18 will be denied; and Claims 19
through 24 will be sustained.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the
whole record and all this 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; anal
That the Agreement was violated to the extent indicated in the Opinion.
Claims 1 through 18 denied;
Claims 19 through 24 sustained, all in accordance with the Opinion and
Findings.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of April 1966.
Keenan Printing Go., Chicago, Ill. Printed in U. S. A.
14300 7