THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES UNION
(Formerly The Order of Railroad Telegraphers)
of Anchorage are far outside radio range of Houston. Erwinville, as stated, is not equipped with radio communication. Thus, had the telegrapher at Erwinville been on duty at the time the information was needed, he could not have readily contacted the train crew.
4. On February 24, 1965, the General Chairman appealed the claim to the General Manager, who declined it, and among other things pointed out that the territory involved is equipped with Centralized Traffic Control, which means that trains move on signal indication, obviating the need for train orders, except Form X (slow orders), none of which was involved here.
5. On March 16, 1965, the General Chairman appealed the claim to the Director of Labor Relations, Carrier's chief operating officer designated to handle such matters. There was nothing in that appeal, or any other, nor has any contention been made orally, that there was any information requested or given with respect to the passing, arrival and/or departure of any train at any point. Nor has there been any contention that the train dispatcher talked to any one other than a telegrapher, nor that any one other than a telegrapher gave any information to the dispatcher.
6. The Director of Labor Relations declined the claim on May 7, 1965. Conference was held a few days later (May 12) and the Union advanced no new argument or basis for claim. On May 24, the Director of Labor Relations affirmed the May 7 decision, which the General Chairman rejected by letter dated September 22, 1965. In that letter, the General Chairman clarified the Union's position by saying, " . the claim here was predicated upon the reporting of their trains (sic) by the train service employes.' ' He still did not offer, and the Union never has attempted to offer, any proof that anyone "reported" any train or trains. The Carrier has consistently denied, and still denies, that any such thing happened.
OPINION OF BOARD: On March 1, 1952, a dispatcher instructed the telegrapher on duty at Anchorage, Louisiana, to radio Train Extra 722 East at Erwinville, Louisiana, and find out how long such train would remain in Erwinville. The telegrapher radioed the conductor of Extra 722 East, was advised that such train's crew was going to eat in Erwinville before departing, and passed this information on to the dispatcher. The dispatcher, utilizing this information, authorized another train to proceed to Erwinville to meet Extra 722 East there.
The Employes contend that the telegrapher at Anchorage should not have been utilized to obtain by radio the before described information from the conductor at Erwinville. They contend that, because of the provisions of Rule 2(c) of the Agreement, the dispatcher should have used the agenttelegrapher at Erwinville, even though such agent-telegrapher was not on duty at the time in question.
Nothing in Rule 2(c) prohibits the activities related above assuming, without deciding, that the information imparted by the conductor of Extra 722 East falls within the purview of Rule 2(c), such information was given to a person covered by the Agreement and not to the dispatcher. The claim must be denied. See Award No. 15740 (Kenan).