NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

THIRD DIVISION

George S. Ives, Referee

AMERICAN TRAIN DISPATCHERS ASSOCIATION

SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY

(Pacific Lines)

(a) The Southern Pacific Company (Pacific Lines), (hereinafter referred to as "the Carrier") violated the currently effective Agreement between the parties, Article 1, Section (c) and the agreed-upon interpretation thereof contained in Memorandum of Understanding dated September 13, 1937 in particular when, on February 18, 1965, it permitted and/or required an officer of the Carrier, an employe not within the scope of said Agreement, to assume primary responsibility for the movement of trains at Santa Susana, California on Carrier's Los Angeles Division.

(b) For the above violation, Carrier shall now be required to compensate Claimant B. J. Skipper one day's pay at trick train dispatcher rate of pay for February 18, 1965, a day upon which he was deprived of train dispatching work for which he was qualified and available and to which he was entitled under the provisions of the Agreement, but which work was performed by an employe of the Carrier not within the scope of said Agreement.

"ARTICLE 1.

SECTION (c). Definition of Trick Train Dispatchers' Positions. The above class includes positions in which the duties of incumbents are to be primarily responsible for the movement of trains by train orders, or otherwise; to supervise forces employed in handling train orders; to keep necessary records incident thereto; and to perform related work."

and further investigation, again wrote Carrier's Assistant Manager of Personnel on January 11, 1966 (Carrier's Exhibit F). By letter dated February 16, 1966, Carrier's Assistant Manager of Personnel denied the claim-see Carrier's Exhibit G.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: The essential facts involved are not in issue. On February 18, 1965 Carrier's Work Extra 5270, equipped with a Spero Rail Grinder, held work train authority to work on Carrier's main track between Chatsworth and Santa Susana. The train orders issued to said train required protection against certain trains but did not confer authority to occupy Carrier's main track at either Chatsworth or Santa Susana, intermediate points on the Santa Barbara Subdivision of Carrier's Los Angeles Division. The record reflects that Work Extra 5270 arrived at Santa Susana on the claim date before certain trains from which it was protected by train order. The Assistant Trainmaster in charge of the rail grinding operation communicated with the crews of Trains First 831 and Second 831 by radio, informing each that the rail grinder was occupying the main track at Santa Susana and that said trains were to run through the siding at that location. Petitioner contends that Carrier violated the Scope Rule of the Agreement between the parties, specifically Article 1, Section (c), as well as the Memorandum of Understanding dated September 13, 1937 with respect to the application of Article 1 (c) which provide as follows:

"ARTICLE 1.

SECTION (c). Definition of Trick Train Dispatchers' Positions. The above class includes positions in which the duties of incumbents are to be primarily responsible for the movement of trains by train orders, or otherwise; to supervise forces employed in handling train orders; to keep necessary records incident thereto; and to perform related work."

"MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

In connection with the provisions of Article 1 (c), Train Dispatchers' Agreement reading:

`DEFINITION OF TRICK TRAIN DISPATCHERS'

POSITIONS.

`The above class includes positions in which the duties of incumbents are to be primarily responsible for the movement of trains by train orders, or otherwise; to supervise forces in handling train orders; to keep necessary- records incident thereto; and to perform related work.'

It is understood that the basic principle involved, in determining the classification of a position as that of train dispatcher, is whether or not the incumbent is `primarily responsible for the movement of trains' regardless of the method employed; example, an employe who handles any form of mechanical device controlling the movement of trains, under the direction of the train dispatcher covering individual moves, is not primarily responsible for the movement of trains, and

therefore is not a train dispatcher; on the other hand if such movements over main line territory between stations are made independent of and without instructions from the train dispatcher, the operator of such devices or methods, is primarily responsible for the movement of trains, and comes under the `train dispatcher' classification. It is understood that, yard and terminal movements controlled by towers, do not fall within the Train Dispatcher classification."

Carrier avers that Article 1 (c) is a classification ruling only and does not reserve work exclusively to trick train dispatchers as alleged by Petitioner. However, the Memorandum of Understanding further defines the position of trick dispatcher and must be considered together with the applicable language of the general Agreement. Consequently, it is apparent that the controlling language is specific and not general in nature as alleged by Carrier.

Carrier further contends that the Assistant Trainmaster merely permitted his work train to continue working at a station with flagging protection, which happened to include a movement of trains through a siding while such work was in process. The clear implication of Carrier's contention is that the Assistant Trainmaster became a "flagman" for the work train and performed no work of a train dispatcher. Under similar circumstances, this Board has held on previous occasions that regardless of Carrier's description of the Assistant Trainmaster's functions as a member of the work train crew, he still was primarily responsible for the train movement. Awards 7575 and 7576.

Carrier also contends that the language of the Memorandum of Understanding applies only to the movement of trains between stations, and by implication, excludes movements at a single station such as allegedly is found in the instant case.

The record reflects that the work train was located at Santa Susana when the disputed movement occurred over a siding pursuant to the instructions of the Assistant Trainmaster transmitted by radio. Both Santa Susam and Chatsworth are simply described as intermediate points on Carrier's main track between which Carrier's Work Extra 5270 was assigned to rail grinding on February 18, 1965. Santa Susana is not within yard limits. Furthermore, the territory between Santa Susana and Chatsworth is single main track upon which trains are operated by time table and train order, and the train order office at Santa Susana was open.

In view of the foregoing, we find Carrier's alleged distinction without merit, particularly as the disputed movement on a siding involved the movement of trains on Carrier's main line between stations operated by train orders, and not the movement of the work train. Accordingly, we find that a violation of Article 1, Section (c) occurred as the disputed movement was clearly within the purview of the Memorandum of Understanding. Awards 7575 and 7576.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the parties waived oral hearing;

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 the Agreement was violated.

AWARD