TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES UNION
(Formerly The Order of Railroad Telegraphers)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad, that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: At 12:31 P. M., Monday, September 30, 1963, at Granger, Texas, Conductor B. W. Foster of train Extra 119 North handled (received, copied and delivered) train order No. 90. The order was addressed to the conductor and engineer of that train at Granger and read as follows:
The order was signed by "JHC;' made complete at 12:31 P. M., and signed "Foster" as the Operator.
Claimant on the date of claim held the position of the regularly assigned rest-day relief telegrapher at Granger and Temple, Texas, on the following basis:
CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: Claimant J. H. Forbes is employed as extra telegrapher on the seniority district involved, and at the time of this claim was employed as relief telegrapher at Temple-Granger, Texas, relieving the regular assigned relief telegrapher who was laying off account of illness. This relief position is assigned to work as follows:
Claimant resides and was in Temple when train order service involved was required and performed at Granger which is 28.1 rail miles and 29 highway miles from Temple. The regular assigned Agent-telegrapher at Granger resides in Austin which ins 47.4 rail miles from Granger and was on his rest days when the service involved was required and performed at Granger.
At 12:31 P. M., Monday, September 30, 1963, the bead brakeman on Extra 119 North at Granger inquired of train dispatcher on telephone about passenger train No. 1 and was given train order with time for Extra 119 North to go to Cohel, 27 rail miles north of Granger, for No. 1.
Claim for call was made by Telegrapher J. H. Forbes account Brakeman or Conductor Foster copying train order No. 90 at Granger at 12:31 P. M., September 30, 1963. The Carrier declined the claim as indicated in copy of correspondence attached, Carrier's Exhibit A.
No conference has been held by the parties to consider, and, if possible, decide this alleged unadjusted dispute in accordance with the clear, specific and mandatory requirements of Section 2, Second, of the amended Railway Labor Act, and Circular No. 1 of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, dated October 10, 1934.
OPINION OF BOARD: No conference was held on the property in connection with this dispute. Under the circumstances we shall follow the weight of authority of such recent decisions as Award 14386, 14370 and 13563 and sustain Carrier's contention the matter is not properly before this Board.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds: