PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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 Tennessee Central Railway, that:





EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is in evidence an Agreement by and between the Tennessee Central Railway Company, hereinafter referred to as Carrier, and its employes in the Telegraphers' class, hereinafter referred to as Organization or Employes, effective May 1, 1924 and as amended. Copies of said Agreement are, as provided by law, assumed to be on file with this Board and are, by this reference, made a part hereof.





                        General Chairman"


Correspondence reflecting handling given this claim on the property is appended marked Carrier's Exhibits 2 to 8, inclusive.


    (Exhibits not reproduced.)


OPINION OF BOARD: Rule 12 of the parties' agreement restricts the transmission and receipt of train orders or messages by telephone or telegraph to employes covered by the agreement "except in cases of emergency."


On February 21, 1963, train No. 81, moving against superior train No. 84 received a train order, advancing its movement, which was received by a section foreman at Mt. Juliet, and by him delivered to No. 81 at Stone River. The necessity for this train order arose because of delay to a train making connection at Nashville with train No. 84.


On March 1, 1963, under similar circumstances No. 81 received a train order which was copied by its conductor at Lebanon.


On March 15, 1963, train No. 81, while engaged in picking up cars at Martha Crusher suffered an engine failure. When mechanical forces, dispatched from Nashville, had completed repairs, train No. 81 was not able to proceed against No. 84 without an additional train order. Such train order was received by telephone by the conductor.


Claims were filed for all three dates, as shown in the statement of claim, the Employes alleging violation of Rule 12 in each instance. The Carrier contended that the circumstances in all three cases constituted "emergencies," thus permitting the train orders to be received by employes other than telegraphers.


Examination and careful consideration of the record convinces us that the delays resulting in late departure of train No. 84 on February 21 and March 1, 1963, were simple operating exigencies, not amounting to emergencies within the intent of the rule. The claim for these two dates, therefore, must be sustained.


We are similarly convinced that if there had been no engine failure on train No. 81 on March 15, there would have been no necessity for the train order. It follows, therefore, that this train order did result from an emergency and its receipt by the conductor was permissible under the rule. The claim for this date must, therefore, be denied.


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:


16011 6
 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 violated to the extent indicated in the Opinion.
                AWARD


Claim for February 21 and March 1, 1963, sustained; claim for March 15, 1963, denied; all in accordance with the Opinion and Findings.

              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

              By Order of THIRD DIVISION


              ATTEST: S. H. Schulty

              Executive Secretary

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of December 1967.

 Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, 111. Printed in U.S.A.
 16011 7