PARTIES TO DISPUTE:



SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY

(Pacific Lines)


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the American Train Dispatchers Association that:



EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is an Agreement in effect between the parties, a copy of which is on file with this Board, and same is made a part hereof as though it were fully set forth herein.

Attached hereto as Exhibit TD-1 is a copy of Memorandum of Understanding dated September 13, 1937 which contains an agreed upon interpretation of Article 1, Section (c) of said Agreement and, for ready reference, Article 1, Section (c) is here quoted in full:




On the claim date here involved, Claimant L. W. Campbell was a train dispatcher assigned to service in Carrier's Eugene, Oregon train dispatching office, was qualified for and available to perform any necessary train dispatching service.


and by letter dated June 7, 1966 (Carrier's Exhibit D), Carrier's Assistant. Manager of Personnel denied the claim, stating in part as follows:





OPINION OF BOARD: The dispute herein involves the movement of trains within yard limits. on April 5, 1965, the conductor on one assignment identified as the "Willamina Turn," operating within McMinnville yard limits, established radio contact with the conductor on another assignment known as the "Northsider" to determine location of the latter as an incident to arranging their movements against each other within said yard limits. Movements within the yard limits are authorized under Rule 93 of the Rules and Regulations of the Transportation Department.


The Petitioner contends that the crew of the "Willamina Turn" moved its. train over the main track within yard limits on the strength of information obtained from the conductor of the "Northsider," that such radio information from the conductor of the "Northsider" was in effect a train order which enabled them to move, and that such procedure by the train crew constituted a violation of the Train Dispatchers' Agreement.


The Carrier denies that the train crews moved on the strength of the radio information, denies that the radio information was in effect a "train order" and denies that the procedure followed by the two train crews in this. case constituted a violation of the Dispatchers' Agreement.





In the handling of the present dispute on the property, the Carrier insisted that the train crews moved of their own initiative in accordance with


16526

Operating Rule 93. In its submission to this Board the Carrier maintains that position.


We do not construe the radio communication between the two crews as°· constituting a "train order." The use of the radio by the train crews was not. in violation of the Dispatchers' Agreement. The Petitioner has not proved that movements here involved were not made in accordance with Operating Rule 93. On the basis of Award 6885 the claim herein 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




    Claim denied.


              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD, By Order of THIRD DIVISION


              ATTEST: S. H. Schulty

              Executive Secretary

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of July 1968.

Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, Ill. Printed in 11.8 A_
16526 5