TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES UNION
(Formerly The Order of Railroad Telegraphers)
MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
(Gulf District)
1. The Carrier violated the Telegraphers' Agreement, Scope Rule 1 and Rule 2(c), when it permitted Trainmaster G. C. Smith at Reeves, Louisiana, a blind siding, to open up an office of communication, copy and deliver train order No. 42 at 2:23 P. M., May 17, 1963.
2. The Carrier shall compensate Telegrapher R. J. Touchette in the amount of 8 hours at $2.53 per hour, total of $20.24 far this violation who should have been used to perform this required duties of a telegrapher.
1. The Carrier violated the Telegraphers' Agreement of March 1, 1952 when it permitted the issuing and a member of train crew No. 95 to copy and deliver train order No. 66, July 27, 1963 at Elizabeth, Texas, a blind siding, at 11:52 P. M., Scope Rule 1 and Rule 2(c).
2. The Carrier shall compensate the idle senior telegrapher on this date eight (8) hours at $2.53, total $20.24 for this violation.
1. The Carrier violated Rule 1 and Rule 2(c) of the Telegraphers' Agreement when, on the loth day of November 1963, it required and permitted Conductor G. R. Robinson, a train service employe, to copy, receive and deliver train orders Nos. 216, 217 and 219 for Third 66 and Extra 477 North at Buda, Texas, a blind siding.
2. Carrier shall compensate the senior idle telegrapher, extra in preference, 8 hours at the prevailing telegraphers' rate of pay for this violation.
1. Carrier violated Scope Rule 1 and Rule 2(c) of the Telegraphers' Agreement when, on the 21st day of November 1963, it required and permitted train service employes on Extra 726 North at Jetero, Texas (a blind siding), to receive, copy and deliver train order No. 35.
2. Carrier shall compensate the senior idle telegrapher (extra in preference) 8 hours at the prevailing telegraphers' rate of pay for this violation.
1. Carrier violated Scope Rule 1 and Rule 2(c) of the Telegraphers' Agreement when, on the 22nd day of November 1963; it required and permitted train service employes to copy and deliver train order No. 40 at MA Siding (a blind siding) to train No. 140.
2. Carrier shall compensate the senior idle telegrapher (extra in preference) 8 hours at the prevailing telegrapbers' rate of pay for this violation.
3. Carrier violated Scope Rule 1 and Rule 2(a) of the Telegraphers' Agreement when, on the 23rd day of November 1963, it required and permitted Conductor Hutchinson on train No. 141 to copy and deliver train order No. 21 at East Waco, Texas.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: All five claims in this docket concern the handling of train orders by other than telegraphers at what is known as a blind siding on various dates in 1963. Claim No. 1 occurred when Trainmaster G. C. Smith at Reeves, Louisiana, which is located 24.3 miles east of DeQuincy, Louisiana, contacted the train dispatcher at Houston, Texas from the phone booth at Reeves about 2:23 P. M. on May 17, 1963, and requested the time on No. 51. The dispatcher immediately issued Train Order No. 42 to Trainmaster Smith and agent-telegrapher at Elton, Louisiana, 21 miles east of Reeves. Trainmaster Smith repeated the order in the same manner as the telegrapher is required to do and as the agent at Elton also repeated the order to the dispatcher.
Claim No. 2 occurred at Elizabeth, Texas, which is located approximately 5 miles west of Beaumont, Texas. On July 27, 1963, a member of train crew No. 95 local freight came on the dispatcher's telephone and copied and delivered Train Order No. 66.
Claim No. 3 occurred at Buda, Texas, which is located 15 miles southwest of Austin, Texas, at 2:20 A. M. on November 10, 1963, when Conductor G. R. Robinson came on the dispatcher's telephone and informed the dispatcher that Agent-Telegrapher J. R. Hancock had been called and was there prepared to copy train orders for Third 66. The dispatcher informed Conductor
OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute consists of five claims covering six instances of alleged agreement violation.
In Claim No. 1 the Employes allege that a Trainmaster, operating a highway-rail car, contacted the train dispatcher, copied and delivered a train order when no emergency existed, thereby violating the scope rule and Rule 2(c) of the Telegraphers' agreement. Carrier contends that no train order was copied by the Trainmaster, and that he merely asked for information about a specific train. The ensuing debate between the parties did not resolve the conflict concerning what actually happened.
In the remaining claims train orders were copied by train service employes.In each case the necessity for such train orders arose because of delays brought about by engine failure, break-in-two, and a wreck, all of which are described as emergencies in Rule 2(c). Under such conditions the rule excuses the Carrier from using telegraphers to perform the train order work. The Employes contend, however, that in most of the instances the need for train orders arose not because of the emergencies, but because of poor train dispatching; also, that the emergencies did not primarily affect the trains whose
crews copied the orders. There is also a contention by the Employes that in one instance an off duty telegrapher was called and reported, but was not used to handle the necessary train orders. Carrier denies this. The Employes responded by alleging that they had a statement which would substantiate their contention. This statement, however, was not produced either in handling on the property or in the submission to the Board.
A host of our awards has held that the burden is upon the Petitioner to support its assertions with competent evidence. Here, the Employes' entire case rests upon assertions, allegations and argument which are not supported by any evidence that would tend to overcome the Carrier's defenses. Since the Employes have failed to sustain their burden of proof, the claims must be denied.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
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