THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
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 Pacific Railroad (Gulf District), that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Claimant, Agent-Telegrapher L. J. Verhunce, is the regular assigned agent-telegrapher at Devine, Texas. Claimant Verhunce is the only employe at the one-man agency at Devine, Texas and has assigned hours of 8:00 A. M. to 12:00 Noon and 1:00 P. M. to 5:00 P. M., with a meal period assigned from 12:00 Noon to 1:00 P. M. He is assigned Monday through Friday with rest days Saturday and Sunday.
On Wednesday, December 26, 1962, Conductor James, in charge of work train, arrived at Devine, Texas and decided to tie up the work extra at this; location. The operator was not on duty and Conductor James did not call Claimant Verhunce to perform the work but used the telephone to call the dispatcher and advise him that be had arrived at 6:00 P. M. and tied up at 6:30 P. M. When Conductor James attempted to transmit his delay report, the dispatcher stopped him and informed Conductor James to leave the report with the telegrapher, meaning Agent-Telegrapher Verhunce, who was not on duty and would report for duty the next morning at 8:00 A. M.
It was the Employes' position that Conductor James performed the work of the telegrapher, Claimant Verhunce, when he transmitted the report on the
Division Trainmaster M. H. Cunningham's letter dated May 21, 1964, is attached hereto as Carrier's Exhibit A.
OPINION OF BOARD: A conductor of a work train that had just been tied up used the telephone to report to the dispatcher the following information: "Arrived at Devine 6:00 P. M. tied up 6:30 P. M." The dispatcher apparently advised the conductor to allow the agent-telegrapher to handle this tie-up information. The agent-telegrapher was not then on duty and was not called to perform this work.
Rule 2(c) of the Telegraphers' Agreement provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Reporting trains is explicitly recognized by Rule 2(c) as work reserved to the Telegraphers. Train and service employes cannot even be permitted to report trains, except in emergencies. The sole issue in this proceeding is whether the communication was equivalent to a train report. The Board finds that it was.
It is not significant that the dispatcher did not request this train report from this improper source. Rule 2(c) simply does not permit train and engine service employes to make these reports. Nor was it necessary for the Employes to establish that the Carrier made use of the reported information . See Award No. 14 (Ray) of Special Board of Adjustment No. 506.
The Carrier attempted to interject new issues of fact into this proceeding after the Employes had instituted proceedings before this Board. Since these facts, and any issues they might raise, had not been raised during the progress of the claim on the property, they are not properly before the Board and cannot be considered. See Awards 11882 (Christian), 13029 (Hall) and 13139 (Engelstein).