THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES UNION
(Formerly The Order of Railroad Telegraphers)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Transportation-Communication Employees' Union (formerly The Order of Railroad Telegraphers) on the Southern Railway, that:
1. Carrier violated the terms of the Telegraphers' Agreement when on July 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, August 1, 3, 5, and 7, 1963, it caused, required or permitted employes not covered by the Agreement to handle communications of record at Belmont, North Carolina, therefore refusing or declining to allow the entitled employe, as covered by the Agreement, employed at Belmont, North Carolina, to handle the communications.
2. Carrier shall compensate Claimant J. C. Cash, agent-telegrapher, Belmont, North Carolina, the entitled employe employed there covered by the Agreement, one minimum, call of two hours and forty minutes for each violation occurring on week days of Monday through Saturday inclusive, and three hours for each violation occurring on Sunday, both at time and one-half times the pro rata rate of pay for the position of agent-telegrapher, Belmont, North Carolina, for each date, as herein listed, that a violation occurred, or a total of twenty (20) calls.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: At Belmont, North Carolina, the Carrier maintains one position of Agent-Telegrapher with assigned hours of 7:00 A. M. to 4:00 P. M., Monday through Friday, with rest days of Saturday and Sunday. Claimant J. C. Cash is the regular assigned Agent-Telegrapher at this location and as he is the Agent at a one-man station performs all the work at this location.
On the dates and times cited in the claim and shown in the factual statement submitted with the original claim letter of August 23, 1963, the Carrier required or permitted employes not covered by the Agreement to handle communications of record at Belmont, North Carolina, at times when Claimant Cash was not on duty. The Carrier has not denied, in the handling of the claim
OPINION OF BOARD: This case consists of twenty claims wherein the conductor conversed by wayside telephone with the Dispatcher on matters pertinent to his train and other trains. Petitioner asserts that the Claimant Agent-Telegrapher should have been called to handle these twenty messages. Failure by the Carrier to call him constituted a violation of the Scope Rule and the 1929 letter appending to Rule 31, among other rules.
We view the 1929 letter, which is incorporated in the basic contract as an appendage to Rule 31, the standard Train Order Rule, as pertaining only to Train Orders. The Petitioner does not allege in this case that the twenty messages were train orders merely that they were "communications of record." Carrier on the other hand, insists that these messages were simply exchanges of information between the Conductor and the Dispatcher and that such exchanges have been taking place for over 40 years. There is no evidence that any of the twenty messages were made a matter of record.
Since the standard Train Order Rule and the 1929 letter are inapplicable in these situations confronting us, Petitioner of necessity must and does rely heavily on the Scope Rule. As we have said in many other cases similar to, as well as identical with this case, the Scope Rule is general in its language. It does not define the work to be covered by the Agreement. Hence Petitioner has the burden of demonstrating by substantial evidence that the work involved has by custom, tradition and history been reserved to employe% of its craft to the exclusion of all other employes. Such evidence is lacking. We still deny the claim.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds: