Award No. 15866
Docket No. TE-16191
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
Thomas J. Kenan, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES UNION
(Formerly The Order of Railroad Telegraphers)
MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
(Gulf District)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the General Committee of the
Transportation-Communication Employees' Union on the Missouri Pacific Railroad (Gulf District), that:
1. The Carrier violated the Agreement in Rule 2(c) of the
Telegraphers' Agreement when on the 12th day of January 1965, it
obtained from Conductor Walker on Work Extra 715 an OS on No.
50 at Krotz Springs direct to dispatcher and knowing that Conductor
Walker is no operator, do claim in strict violation of the rules.
2. The Carrier shall compensate Agent-Telegrapher N. L.
Corriere, Sr., one call, three hours' pro rata rate of pay for this type
of telegraphers' work by Conductor Walker and giving OS instead of
assigned agent on duty.
3. The Carrier shall compensate senior idle telegrapher (extra in
preference) eight hours pro rata rate of $2.71, total $21.68, for an
OS other than operator and thus opening a field for conductors to do
work as operators. Mr. J. H. Guillory is senior idle telegrapher named
extra.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Krotz Springs, Louisiana, is
located on the DeQuincy Division of the Missouri Pacific Railroad, 40.3 miles
west of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. This is a one-man station with hours of
8:00 A. M. to 5:00 P. M., with a meal period between 12:00 Noon and 1:00
P. M., and assigned rest days of Saturday and Sunday. All the work at this
location is assigned to, the Agent-Telegrapher.
On or about 2:50 P. M., January 12, 1965, Conductor Walker on Extra 715
came on the dispatcher's telephone at Krotz Springs siding from a booth telephone and contacted the train dispatcher direct in Houston, Texas. Conductor
'Walker requested a track and time order. The dispatcher inquired about No.
50, a passenger train. Conductor Walker reported to the dispatcher that No.
50 had passed at 2:55 P. M.
ductor the time No. 50 passed him, and that if the dispatcher needed further
information he would have asked Agent-Telegrapher Corriere who was on duty
and under pay at the time.
8. The claim was progressed through proper channels, declined at each
level and finally appealed to the Director of Labor Relations, Mr. B. W. Smith,
the highest officer designated by the Carrier for the handling of all labor
matters, who declined the claim in the following letter:
"April 1, 1965
K 279-584
Mr. R. T. Phillips
General Chairman -ORT
P. O. Box 456
Palestine, Texas 75801
Dear Sir:
Reference to your letter dated February 24, 1965, file F-6-557,
appealing from the decision of General Manager D. J. Smith claim on
behalf of Agent-Telegrapher N. L. Carriere, Sr., Krotz Springs, for
one call; and for eight hours' pay on behalf of the 'senior idle telegrapher, J. H. Guillory, on January 12, 1965, when it is alleged Conductor
Walker on Work Extra 715 violated the Telegraphers' Agreement in
advising the dispatcher that No. 50 had passed him.
Facts in connection with this dispute are as follows: Conductor
Walker called the dispatcher to request track and time as this is CTC
territory and is necessary to get track and time authority from the dispatcher. The dispatcher asked if No. 50 was by him; the conductor said
yes and volunteered that it went by him at 2:55 P. M. There is no
claim that the request for 'track and time' is a violation of the Telegraphers' Agreement, but rather that the conductor 'reported' No. 50
direct to the dispatcher.
It is obvious that the object of the telephone conversation was not
to 'report' No. 50 to the dispatcher as the dispatcher did not request
or need such information. No use was made of the information by the
dispatcher to further the movement of any train. The object of the
telephone conversation was to secure 'track and time' authority from
the dispatcher in OTC territory, and there is no claim that this act
resulted in a violation of the Telegraphers' Agreement.
In any event, the claim is excessive in view of the fact that claim
is made for eleven hours' pay which certainly is not comparable to the
amount of alleged work involved.
In view of the foregoing, claim is without merit or rule support
and is hereby declined.
Yours truly,
/s/ B. W. Smith"
OPINION OF BOARD: On January
12, 1965, the train conductor of Work
Extra 715 telephoned the dispatcher for track and time authority to enter the
16866
track in CTC territory. The dispatcher asked the conductor if Train No. 50 had
passed the point where Work Extra 715 would enter the track. The conductor
said that No. 50 had passed such point at 2:55 P. M. The Employes contend
that the conductor thereby "reported" Train No. 50 and violated Rule 2(c) or
Rule 1 of the Agreement.
Rule 2(c) prohibits train and engine service employes from reporting their
own trains, not other trains. See Award No. 15861 (Kenan). To decide this
dispute, the Board need not even determine whether the conversation in question was a train report, but only whether Rule 1, the Scope Rule, was violated.
To sustain their claim under Rule 1, the Employes must show, by proof,
that the activity in question has been reserved to the Telegraphers through
practice, custom or tradition. No such showing was made, and the claim must
be denied.
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 not violated.
AWARD
Claim
denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of October 1967.
Keenan Printing Co., Chica*o, 111. Printed in U.S.A.
15866 4