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 Fort Worth and Denver Railway, that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is in evidence an Agreement by and between the Fort Worth and Denver Railway Company, hereinafter referred to as Carrier, and The Order of Railroad Telegraphers, hereinafter referred to as organization and/or Employes, governing the employment, working conditions and compensation of employes in telegraph and station service effective December 1, 1955, and as amended. Copies of said Agreement are, as required by law, assumed to he on file with this Board and are, by this reference, made a part hereof.
At pages 85-86 of said Agreement are listed by location, position title and rates of pay the positions covered by said Agreement. For ready reference the position listing for the locations involved in these disputes are as follows:
car operators merely inform them when a train is due so they may get off the track and out of the way.
Agreement between the Fort Worth and Denver Railway Company and The Order of Railroad Telegraphers, effective December 1, 1955, is on file with the Board and by reference is made a part of this submission.
OPINION OF BOARD: This consolidated claim arises out of Petitioner's contention that Carrier has violated Rule 1(b) of the effective Agreement since February 25, 1963 at stated locations whenever section foremen or other employes not covered by said Agreement receive train line-ups by telephone and record them in accordance with Carrier's operating rules when no telegraphers are on duty.
Petitioner contends that Rule 1(b) of the Agreement grants telegraphers the exclusive right to handle communications of record and that motor car line-ups are clearly communications of record within the meaning of Rule 1(b). Therefore, Petitioner maintains that conflicting practice over a period of many years cannot abrogate the clear and unambiguous terms of the Agreement.
Carrier insists that the Scope Rule does not reserve this work exclusively to telegraphers; that the work here at issue has historically been performed by employes in the Maintenance of Way department; and that Rule 1(b) is inapplicable because disputed changes in Carrier's operating rules did not operate to remove any work belonging exclusively to telegraphers out from under the Agreement.
Rule 1(a) of the Agreement does not purport to describe the work to he performed by various classes of employes covered by the Agreement, nor is any work specifically reserved therein to certain employes. Rule 1(b) of the Agreement provides as follows:
As the Scope Rule is general in nature, we must look to custom and practice to ascertain whether or not the work in dispute is exclusively reserved to telegraphers. We find that employes other than telegraphers have obtained motor car line-ups for many years under similar circumstances, and that this Division previously determined that Petitioner lost the exclusive right to such work through established practice over a twenty year period prior to challenge in 19.56. Awards 10951 and 11895.
Rule IN is clearly prospective in application and is inapplicable to the work in dispute over which Petitioner lost exclusive jurisdiction prior to the adoption of the contractual language relied on in this case. Accordingly, we must find that the established practice on this property of securing track car line-ups has not been modified or abrogated by revision of the Scope Rule or by any interpretation on the property. Therefore, the claim will be denied.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds: