®36,
Award No. 15792
Docket No. TE-14723
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Wesley Miller, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES UNION
(Formerly The Order of Railroad Telegraphers)
THE TEXAS AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of The
Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the Texas and Pacific Railway that:
1. Carrier violated the terms of an Agreement between the
parties hereto when on March 7, 1963, it required or permitted Fireman R. J. Deshotel, an employe not covered by said Agreement, to
handle (receive, copy and deliver) Train Order No. 14 at Addis,
Louisiana.
2. Carrier shall, because of the violation set out above, compensate Operator G. E. Booksh, assigned at Addis, Louisiana, for
two hours at the time and one-half rate (a call).
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is in evidence an Agreement by and between the Texas & Pacific Railway Company, hereinafter
referred to as Carrier, and its Telegraphers and certain other employes
thereon represented by The Order of Railroad Telegraphers, hereinafter
referred to as Employes, and/or Organization, effective May 15, 1950, and
as otherwise amended. Copies of said Agreement as required by law are
assumed to be on file with this Board and are, by this reference, made a
part hereof.
At page 40 of said Agreement, under Rule 29 (Wage Scale), are listed
the positions at Addis, Louisiana on the effective date thereof. For ready
reference, the listing reads:
~r . r+
Addis Agent $1.762
Operators 1.606
xaxas~,
The above listing establishes that communication positions are maintained on an around-the-clock basis at Addis, Louisiana. That employes filling these positions are classified as Operators (telegraph or telephone) and
that Addis is a telegraph or telephone office within the meaning of Rule 20(d)
of the parties' Agreement.
not authorized by train dispatchers. Claim was made for loss of
work . . . not congruous.
Award 10364, ORT v. AT&SF, covers claim of named claimant
for loss of work . . . unrelated.
In this connection it must be remembered (and just as courts
have said in applying principles of law) that there should be no
damages imposed where no wrong is
suffered, although the conduct
complained of by you might in your opinion be wrongful, there is
here present a case where it must be held that no penalty should
flow where no loss is sustained.
There was no justifiable reason for us to require the train to
back up to the depot to get a copy of the Order. Nor would it
have been feasible to require the
telegrapher or the fireman to
twice walk the length of the train. The telegrapher on duty copied
the order, and there is no basis for adjustment to an off-duty telegrapher.
The claim is respectfully denied."
Accordingly, the Board is urged to deny the claim for lack of merit.
OPINION OF BOARD: The issues in this case are not complex. Careful reading of
the Record reveals that Carrier violated the Agreement of
the Parties as alleged in the above-shown Statement of Claim.
A treatise would be of dubious value.
This Claim should be sustained.
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 the Agreement was violated by Carrier.
AWARD
Claim allowed as
presented.
NATIONAL RAILROAD
ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive
Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of July 1967.
Keenan Printing
Co., Chicago, Ill. Printed in U.S.A.
15702