TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES UNION
(Formerly The Order of Railroad Telegraphers)
NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD
(Southern District)
1. Carrier violated Agreement when on the 17th day of July, 1962, it failed and refused to permit N. J. Elkins, Second Trick OperatorClerk, Urbana-Yard, Urbana, Illinois, to deliver train order No. 24 addressed to C&E All Eastward trains, ITC Engine 781 and Operator, but instead required Operator N. J. Elkins to leave said train order, with clearance Form A, on the train register at Urbana-Yard Office, at the end of her tour of duty (3:00 A. M.) which orders were later picked up by train service employes of said train.
2. Carrier shall compensate N. .1. Elkins for two hours at one and one-half times pro-rata hourly rate of the second shift telegTapher-clerk position, Urbana, Illinois, (pro-rata hourly rate $2.524).
1. Carrier violated Agreement when on the 21st day of July, 1962, it failed and refused to permit J. H. Davis, second trick operatorclerk, Urbana-Yard, Urbana, Illinois, to deliver train order No. 22 addressed to: Eastward trains, ITC Engine 783 and operator, but instead required Operator J. H. Davis to leave said train order, with clearance Form A, on the train register at Urbana-Yard Office, at the end of his tour of duty (3:00 A. M.), which orders were later picked up by train service employes of said train.
2. Carrier shall compensate Mr. J. H. Davis for two hours at one and one-half times pro-rata hourly rate of the second shift telegrapher-clerk position, Urbana-Yard, Urbana, Illinois (pro-rata hourly rate $2.626).
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: At Urbana, Illinois, the Carrier had negotiated prior to June 27, 1962, three telegrapher positions which were seven-day positions. The following Bulletin Order No. 15 to Time-Table No. 7 was issued on June 26, 1962:
The I. T. C. Railroad has trackage rights over the Peoria & Eastern Railway from Champaign, Illinois, to Fithian, Illinois, and runs a train working extra between Champaign and Fithian about three or four times a week, serving the Delong Elevator, the C&EI connection at Glover, and the P&E connection at Urbana, Illinois.
N. J. Elkins is the owner of the relief assignment at Urbana Yard, Urbana, Illinois, with assigned days as follows:
He was working as the second shift operator at Urbana Yard with assigned hours of 7:00 P. M. to 3:00 A. M. on Tuesday, July 17. On the morning of July 17, 1962, at 3:02 A. M. the train dispatcher transmitted by the use of the telephone to Claimant Elkins the following train order:
Again on July 21, 1962 a clearance Form A and the following train order No. 22 was issued to Claimant Operator-Clerk Davis:
Immediately after completion of the aforequoted train orders and clearance Forms A, the Claimants were released and the train orders were picked up by the Illinois Terminal Railroad crews at 3:30 A. M. and 3:40 A. M. on July 17 and 21, respectively.
The Organization contends that a violation of the Agreement occurred when the train orders were picked up by the Illinois Terminal Railroad crews at a time when there was no Operator-Clerk on duty and Claimants should have been used on a "call" basis to personally deliver the orders into the hands of the Conductor and Engineer.
Claims have been progressed through the prescribed channels in accordance with Time Limits on Claims Rule.
OPINION OF BOARD: The facts set forth in paragraph 1, of both claims are undisputed. Article 19 of the Agreement between the parties, or its equivalent in other agreements, has been the subject of interpretation in numerous previous decisions by this Board. See Award 13870, among others. Following our previous decisions, we must sustain Claim No. 1 and parts one (1) and two (2) of Claim No. 2.
The Agreement, however, contains no provision whereby the records of either party shall be opened for the other's inspection as a means of establishing suspected claims. Nor does the record support the allegation of a continuing violation of the rule. We, therefore, agree with the Carrier that part three (3) of Claim No. 2 must be denied. See Award 10914.
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