THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES UNION
(Formerly The Order of Railroad Telegraphers)
The case was discussed by the parties in conference on July 25, 1963, at which time carrier's previous declination of the claim was reaffirmed.
The agreement between carrier and its employes as represented by The Order of Railroad Telegraphers, revised effective September 1, 1949, includes the following rules:
(a) This agreement applies to all telegraphers, telegrapherclerks, telephone operators (except telephone switchboard operators), agent-telegraphers, agent-telephoners, towermen, levermen, block operators and staffmen, operators of mechanical telegraph machines, wire chiefs, assistant wire chiefs, or analogous positions hereafter established; also such station agents and assistant station agents and ticket agents as are listed herein.
OPINION OF BOARD: The Petitioner alleges that a Conductor transmitted a communication of record to the Train Dispatcher at a point where an Agent-Telegrapher was employed, but was not on duty. The message, according to Petitioner, was as follows:
The Carrier made no attempt to call the claimant to transmit the above message, hence the instant claim was made for a call. The Petitioner relies principally on the Scope Rule, which admittedly is general in nature, and hastens to state that this type of message has customarily, traditionally and historically been handled by the telegraphers to the exclusion of all others. Petitioner does not contend that the cited message was a train order but merely a communication affecting the movement of trains. Petitioner also refers us to a 1929 letter, which is an appendage to Rule 31, the Standard Train Order Rule, but we do not consider that applicable to what Petitioner has characterized as a communication of record. We distinguish the latter from a train order which is the subject of the 1929 letter.
Carrier submits that no record was made of the cited message and indeed avers that the Dispatcher could not recall whether or not such a conversation took place.
As we view the record, the Scope Rule is the rule upon which primary reliance has been placed. It is general in nature and Petitioner must present a preponderance of evidence to demonstrate that the work involved has historically, customarily and traditionally been performed by his classification of employe to the exclusion of all other employes. Such evidence is lacking. We will deny the claim.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Boaid, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
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