Complete Time 3:01 P. M. Brehmer OPR."

Mr. Brehmer was allowed eight (8) hours at straight-time rate (his regular allowance) for the work he performed from 3:00 P. M. to 11:00 P. M. on Sunday, January 21, 1.962.

Assistant Superintendent W. P. Beesley used his automobile to take copies of Train Order No. 44 to the engineer and conductor of Train Extra East, Engine 481, at 3:25 P. M. and 3:28 P. M., respectively, while the train was still standing in Peru Yard at their initial terminal.

Copy of all correspondence had between the representatives of the parties is attached hereto and made a part hereof, marked Carrier's Exhibit A.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: On December 30, 1961, Train Order Nos. 36 and 37 for Train Extra East, Engine 465 were received at the telegrapher office at the passenger station at Peru, Indiana, where they were copied by Telegrapher J. A. Bolner. The train proceeded to the east end of Peru Yard, known as Peru Junction, located 2.3 miles from the depot, at which location these orders were delivered to the conductor and engineer of the train by Trainmaster Robert Dowdy, an employe not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreemnt. On January 21, 1962, Train Order No. 44 was delivered to conductors and engineers of Train No. 4 and Extra East Engine No. 481 by Assistant Superintendent, W. P. Beesley, also an employe not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement. The telegrapher position at Peru Junction had been discontinued for a number of years.

The Brotherhood makes claim that Carrier violated the Agreement, particularly Rule 1(c) when it permitted a trainmaster and assistant superintendent to deliver train orders. It contends that this action deprived employes covered by the Agreement: of work which belongs to them. It asserts that the employes on whose behalf claim is made are entitled to a day's pay for each date of violation of the Agreement under Rule 3.

In the denial Carrier states that the telegraphers who copied the train orders were on duty at the passenger station at Peru, Indiana, at the time of the occurrences for which claim was made and, hence, did not suffer loss of pay. Carrier also maintains that the telegrapher on duty actually handled the train orders except for the physical delivery to the train crew, which was merely an accommodation to the telegrapher on duty.

The pertinent rule :in this dispute is 1(c), which reads as follows:

"(c) No employe other than those (not including non-telegraph agents or exclusive levermen) covered by this agreement and train dispatchers will be permitted to handle train orders except that in an emergency conductors may copy a train order from the train dispatcher, and if there be a telegrapher employed at the point where the conductor copied the train order he (the telegrapher) will be paid a call (three (3) hours at pro rata hourly rate). If there is no telegrapher employed at the point where the conductor copied the train order the telegrapher employed at the nearest station will be paid a call (three (3) hours at pro rata hourly rate)."

Since the record does not indicate that an emergency existed, this rule requires that only employes covered by the Agreement and train dispatchers be permitted to handle train orders. The handling of train orders includes the receiving, copying, and delivering of these messages to the crews addressed. The record shows that the trainmaster and assistant superintendent delivered train orders to train crews at Peru Yard. Since they handled train orders, they performed the work of a telegrapher, in violation of Rule 1(c). Our findings are consistent with Award Nos. 12852, 12921 and 13360.

Compensation is allowed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 1(c) and, accordingly, payment for December 30, 1961 and January 21, 1962, shall be on a call basis.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the 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 thc~ 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

That the Agreement was violated.

AWARD