(b) If instructed by train dispatcher, or other authority, to clear train or trains before going off duty, leaving clearance cards or orders in some specified place for those to whom addressed, employes shall be paid under the provisions of the call and overtime rule.

(c) Train dispatchers will not be required nor permitted to transmit train orders or handle block by telephone or telegraph to train and engine service employes, except in emergency; nor will train and engine service employes be required or permitted to take train orders or to block, or report, trains by telephone or telegraph, except in emergency. Emergency is defined as follows:

Casualty or accident, engine failure, wreck, obstructions on track through collision, failure to block signals, washouts, tornadoes, slides or unusual delay due to hot box or break-in-two that could not have been anticipated by dispatcher when train was at previous telegraph office, which would result in serious delay to traffic.

(d) When orders and/or clearance cards are copied at one point and sent for delivery to a train at a point where telegraph or telephone service is maintained, the employe at such point will be paid for a call."

Your Board's attention is directed to the fact that there were no telegraphers assigned at the points where the train orders were to be executed in Claim No. 1 and Claim No. 2; therefore, paragraph (d) of Rule 2, which. is that part of the rule providing for payment when train orders are addressed "in care of", has no applicability, and offers no support to the contention of the employes. Further, your attention is directed to paragraph (a) of the rule, particularly that part reading, "If operator is available .

because in neither of the cases presented in Claim No. 3 were the operators available; therefore, the rule offers no support for those claims.

OPINION OF BOARD: Claim No. 1 arose on March 2, 1964 when Train Order No. 12 from Division Trainmaster M. H. Cunningham to a work crew at Italy, Texas was directed to Roadmaster S. G. York for pick up at Maypearl, Texas and transmittal to the crew in question.

Claim No. 2 arose on February 10, 1964 when Dispatcher R. P. Bailey transmitted a message care of carmen at Taylor, Texas for delivery to Extra. 921 South at Thrall, Texas, a point six miles away.

Claim No. 3 arose on February 22, 1964 when Dispatcher W. F. Bradley transmitted train orders for delivery from Taylor, Texas to Thomdale, Texas and Rockdale, Texas.

Claims No. 1 and No. 2 involved delivery of messages to locations where no telegraph or telephone service is maintained. Thus, the claims are similarto that raised in Award 16270 and are likewise denied.

Claim No. 3 involved Rockdale and Thorndale, Texas, both of which were points with stations, although the telegraphers concerned were off duty at the time of the messages' arrival.

It is clear from the record that Claim No. 3 comes within the purview of Rule 2 (d), concerning orders copied at one point and sent for delivery at another point where telegraph or telephone service is maintained. Under the terms of Rule 2 (d) the claimants are entitled to pay for a call in both instances.

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 this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

The Agreement was not violated in regard to Claims 1 and 2.

The Agreement was violated in regard to Claim 3.

AWARD