NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
Thomas J. Ifenan, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS
MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the General Committee of The
Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the Missouri Pacific Railroad (Gulf
District), that:
1. Carrier violated Scope Rule 1 and Rule 2(c) of the Telegraphers' Agreement when, on the 20th day of November, 1963, it
required and permitted Dispatcher W. W. Edmiston to secure a train
report on No. 8 as departing from San Antonio, Texas at 9:00 P. M.
2. Carrier shall compensate the senior idle telegrapher (extra
in preference) 8 hours at the prevailing telegrapher's rate of pay for
this violation.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On November 20, 1963, Dispatcher W. W. Edmiston, located in Palestine, Texas, contacted the yard
office at San Antonio, Texas by telephone and requested information concerning Train No. 8. Yardmaster "Clarence" reported as follows:
"No. 8 departed San Antonio at 9:00 P. M."
MS Office is located at San Antonio and there are telegraphers on duty.
This office is on the second floor of the station on the street side opposite the
tracks and the telegrapher has to leave his office and go downstairs and
check passenger trains that depart. During the time in question, a telegrapher
was downstairs performing this duty. The dispatcher needed the information
on the departure of No. 8 and called the yard office and received the information on the departure time of Train No. 8 from Yardmaster Clarence. The
Carrier alleges in its handling of the claim on the property that the train
sheet shows that it was made a matter of record that Train No. 8 departed
San Antonio at 9:00 P. M., but contends the OS was made by the telegrapher
at San Antonio. One item the Carrier fails to take into account when it
makes this analysis of the train sheet is that the dispatcher's line is monitored
by telegraphers all over the area who heard the dispatcher receive the train
report from the yardmaster that Train No. 8 departed San Antonio at
9:00 P. M.
of 'senior idle telegrapher (extra in pref)' for eight hours' pay at
the prevailing telegrapher's rate for November 20, 1963, when it is
alleged Carrier violated Rules 1 and 2(c) when dispatcher W. W.
Edmiston was permitted to secure a train report on No. 8's departure
from San Antonio.
It is noted in presenting this claim that you have not properly
identified the claimant involved. Article V, Section 1(a) of the
August 21, 1954, Agreement required that claims be presented in
writing on behalf of the employe involved: "senior idle telegrapher
(extra in pref)' does not meet this requirement. See Third Division
Award 11754. Therefore, this claim is barred from consideration
account claimant not properly identified in accordance with Article
V, Section I (a) of the August 21, 1954 Agreement.
Without prejudice to Carrier's position expressed in the foregoing paragraph, it is also the Carrier's position that this claim is
without agreement support. Contrary to your contention the dispatcher at Palestine did not contact the yardmaster at San Antonio
to inquire of the departure time of No. 8 from San Antonio. The
dispatcher secured this information from the telegrapher who was on
duty at San Antonio at the time of the alleged violation. Your claim
that the yardmaster 'reported' Train No. 8 to the dispatcher is unsupported.
In view of the foregoing, claim is barred from consideration for
the reason set forth in paragraph two above, in any event the claim
is without merit or rule support and is hereby declined.
Yours truly,
/s/ B. W. Smith"
The Employes submitted no evidence to support the claim that the
yardmaster did report the departure of No. 8 from San Antonio.
OPINION OF BOARD:
The Employes contend that on November 20,
1963 a yardmaster made a train report by telephone to a train dispatcher. The
Carrier denies that such occurred. No proof is offered by the Employes to
support their contention. This Board cannot consider this disputed matter,
wholly unsupported by evidence.
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 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
That no proof was offered to support the claim.
15743 3
AWARD
Claim dismissed.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Sehulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois 21st day of July 1967.
Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, Ill. Printed in U.S.A.
15743 4