THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES UNION
(Formerly The Order of Railroad Telegraphers)
1. Carrier violated the Agreement when it required or permitted employes not covered thereby to perform communication service of record by use of the telephone on November 22, 1960 and January 19, 1961, at Mexico, Missouri.
they did not already have. By reason of Rule 93 of the Rules of the Operating Department that crew could use the main track at Mexico protecting only against first class trains and had priority to the use of the main track over freight trains (including "No. 90's Extra", referred to in the conversation between Conductor Guittar and the train dispatcher).
In the General Chairman's letter to the Manager-Personnel, dated February 6, 1961, he states:
Conductor Guittar did not receive a train line-up from the train dispatcher and the conversation between the conductor on the switch local and the train dispatcher did not extend, nullify or limit the authority the crew of the Mexico Switch Local had before the conversation took place.
Copy of all of the correspondence between the representatives of the parties to this dispute as pertaining to the claim presented on behalf of Telegrapher C. T. Johnson is attached hereto and made a part hereof, marked Carrier's Exhibit B.
OPINION OF BOARD: On November 22, 1960, a member of the Mexico Switch Crew, an employe not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement, communicated with the Train Dispatcher at a time when Claimant Neifert was on duty as a Telegrapher and available to perform the work.
Also, on January 19, 1961, the Conductor on Mexico Switch Local, an employe not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement, talked to the Train Dispatcher at a time when Claimant Johnson was on duty as a Telegrapher and available to perform the work.
Claimants each seek the payment of a minimum "call" (three hours' pay for two hours' work or less) because the Carrier permitted an employe not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement to perform work of transmitting and receiving alleged communications of record.
Prior awards between these same parties have held in each instance that the Organization has failed to prove that communications of record belong exclusively to the Telegraphers. We find no evidence in our record to justify a finding to the contrary. The Claims will be denied in line with Awards 11401 (Hall), 11671 (Rinehart), 13501-13504 (Moore), 13506-13508 (Moore), and 13510 (Moore).
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
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;