THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES UNION
(Formerly The Order of Railroad Telegraphers)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the Southern Railway, that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On September 26, 1962, beginning at 1:02 A. M., Trainmaster W. C. Johnson performed the work of a block operator at Parrish, Alabama. Claimant H. W. Cagle, the agent-telegrapher assigned to Parrish, Alabama, was not on duty nor was he called to perform the work at that time. Conductor E. H. Rutledge was in charge of the Parrish Mine Run and was located at Blossburg Junction Mile Post 813.8 when he performed block operator work with Trainmaster Johnson. Trainmaster Johnson controlled the movement of Train No. 91 by verbally telling Conductor Rutledge, "I am holding the coal train No. 91 at Parrish until the Parrish Mine Run gets here." With this positive block, Conductor Rutledge moved the Parrish Mine Run between Blossburg Junction to Parrish. This is work of a block operator under the Scope Rule of the Telegraphers' Agreement.
(b) For work in advance of and which continues to starting time of regular work period, employes will be paid a minimum allowance of one hour at time and one-half rate for one hour or less, additional time calculated on minute basis at same rate."
This agreement is revised as of September 1, 1949 and shall continue in effect until thirty (30) days' written notice is given by either party to the other of desire to revise or modify in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act."
OPINION OF BOARD: 'There are two locations involved in this dispute, one being at Parrish, where a telegrapher is employed, the other being at Blossburg Junction where no telegrapher is employed.
The Trainmaster, using a telephone at Parrish, was discussing operations with the dispatcher at Birmingham. The Conductor, using a telephone at Blossburg Junction, came in on the dispatcher's line and inquired about opposing train No. 91. The Trainmaster advised the Conductor that he was at Parrish and would provide flag protection against Train No. 91, and for him to bring his train to Parrish.
We find that the Parrish Claim should be sustained in that the message did involve the movement of trains, was a train order within the contemplation of Rule 31, and although not made a matter of record did violate Rule 31. An Agent-Telegrapher was employed at Parrish and should be compensated as claimed. (See Award 1230'5-Kane.)
Since no Agent-Telegrapher was employed at Blossburg Junction Rule 31 is inapplicable. Petitioner therefore, relies on the Scope Rule. This Rule is general in nature and under the exclusivity doctrine, he must show by a preponderance of evidence that he was historically, traditionally and custo-