TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES UNION
(Formerly The Order of Railroad Telegraphers)
ment. Claimant A. L. Creely on September 18 and 19, 1961, was unassigned because he had been the regular second trick Wire Chief at CF, which position was abolished on September 15, 1961, and he did not exercise seniority as third trick Block Operator at Vernon Tower until September 20, 1961. Claimant E. A. Clark was the regular Relief Wire Chief at CF. This position was abolished on September 15, 1961, and Clark exercised seniority as second trick Block Operator at Vernon Tower on September 17, 1961; therefore, on September 16, 1961, one of the dates for which claim was made on his behalf, he was an unassigned employe.
The individual claims covered by the subject at the beginning of this submission were presented by Local Chairman J. J. Leavens on CTS-449 Daily Time Reports, partly on October 4, 1961, and partly on October 24, 1961. Train Master-Road Foreman of Engines 'C. L. Ryan denied the claims in his letter of October 26, 1961.
Under date of November 1, 1961, the District Chairman rejected the decision of the Train Master-Road Foreman of Engines, and listed a claim in substantially the same form as that outlined at the beginning of this Submission with the Carrier's General Manager. The General Manager denied the claim on November 22, 1961. A copy of the letter of November 22, 1961, is attached as Carrier's Exhibit B.
The District Chairman rejected the General Manager's decision and turned the claim over to his General Chairman. In his letter of December 8, 1961, the General Chairman listed the claim for discussion with the General Manager. The claim was discussed on January 18, 1962, and on February 23, 1962, the General Manager denied it. A copy of the letter of February 23, 1962, is attached as Carrier's Exhibit C.
Therefore, so far as the Carrier is able to anticipate the basis of the claim, the questions to be decided by your Honorable Board are whether the Scope of the Rules Agreement was violated when the Movement Directors copied information from teletype messages in CF Telegraph Office and whether or not the Claimants are entitled to the compensation claimed.
OPINION OF BOARD: Carrier maintains three shifts of Movement Directors, herein called dispatchers, at Camden, New Jersey. Inter alia, the dispatchers compile certain reports concerning operation of trains. Some of the information required is received from other points on the system via teletype machines in the telegraph office across a corridor from the dispatchers' office.
For many years the telegraph office was manned by telegraphers on the first and second shifts. When the information needed by the dispatchers was received on a teletype machine on those shifts, the telegrapher on duty delivered it to the dispatcher. No telegrapher was on duty during the third shift. During the third shift the teletype machine was permitted to operate unattended, and the third shift dispatcher would go into the telegraph office, examine the "copy" and extract the information he needed for his reports.
On or about September 15, 1961, the second shift telegrapher's position was abolished, after which the dispatcher on that shift obtained his information as did the dispatcher on the third shift.
It is uncontroverted that the communication here involved had been historically performed by telegraphers on the first and second shifts, but not on the third shift. From this Petitioner argues that the historical practice vested the work on the second shift in telegraphers; and, the change in the practice brought about by eliminating the second shift telegrapher position violated the Scope Rule of the Telegraphers' Agreement. Petitioner cites our Awards No. 5431 and 8133 in support of its contention.
The Scope Rule of the Agreement is general in nature. When this is so, we have held in a preponderance of cases that an organization must prove its claim to the work by proving its exclusive performance within the area encompassed by the Agreement through custom, practice and tradition; and, we adhered to this test in our recent Award No. 13723, involving the parties herein and similar facts and like issue. The "exclusivity" factor in the test is a harsh burden of proof. The Referee would propose striking it if the factor was not imbedded for so long a time in this Division's case law, and relief potentially available to the organizations through the collective bargaining process.
Since Petitioner has failed to satisfy the burden of proof prescribed in the test, we will deny the Claim.
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;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and