Corrected Copy



NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

THIRD DIVISION




PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES

UNION


THE NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN AND HARTFORD

RAILROAD COMPANY


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Transportation-Communication Employees Union on the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad, that:



























17501 2


















17501 3


















EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: An agreement between the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company and this Union, dated September 1, 1949, as amended and supplemented is available to your Board and by this reference is made a part hereof.


These claims were presented and progressed in accordance with the time limits provided by the Agreement up to and including appeal and conference with the highest officer designated by the Carrier to receive appeals. Having failed to reach a settlement, the Employees now appeal to your

Honorable Board for adjudication.
17501 4

OPINION OF BOARD: The essential issues and material facts in Claims Nos. 1 through 8, Claims Nos. 11 through 13, and Claim No. 15 are practically identical with those considered in Awards 16304 and 16305 involving the same location, Waterbury, Connecticut. Based on those Awards, which we do not find to be in palpable error, Claims Nos. 1 through 8, Claims Nos. 11 through 13, and Claim No, 15 will be denied.


Claims Nos. 9 and 10 involve Danielson, Connecticut. The Petitioner contends that for many years a second trick position, with assigned hours 4:00 P.M. to midnight, was maintained at Danielson, and previous to that, three tricks were maintained, furnishing blocking and train order service twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week. This contention is not refuted by the Carrier. The alleged violations occurred at about 5:00 P.M. in Claim No. 9 and at about 5:50 P.M. in Claim No. 10. On authority of Award 13696, involving the same parties, Claims Nos. 9 and 10 will be sustained.


Claim No. 14 involves Plainville, Connecticut. The Petitioner contends that up until a few years ago, three telegraphers were employed at Plainville, one on each shift, providing twenty-four hour blocking and train order service, seven days per week, which contention is not refuted by the Carrier. Based on Award 13696, Claim No. 14 will be sustained.


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






Claims No. 9, 10 and 14 sustained; Claims No. 1 through 8, Claims Nos. 11 through 13 and Claim No. 15 denied.








Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of September 1969.

Central Publishing Co., Indianapolis, Ind. 46206 Printed in U.S.A.

17501 10