2. Carrier shall compensate J. H. Childs for two two hour calls at one and one-half times pro rata hourly rate of the agent-operator position at Leland, Mississippi. Total $19.60.
1. Carrier violated the Agreement when on November 1, 1967, it failed and refused to permit Agent-Operator L. G. Keith to deliver Train Order No. 230 dated November 1, 1967 addressed to C&E Extra 9323 North, but instead required Mr. Keith to leave said train order "on train register outside of office window" at the end of his tour of duty, which orders were picked up later by train service employes of said train service employes of said trains.
2. Carrier shall compensate L. G. Keith for a two hour call at one and one-half times pro rata hourly rate of the agent-operator position at Leland, Mississippi. Total $9.80,
1. Carrier violated the Agreement when on November 20, 1967 it failed and refused to permit Agent-Operator L. G. Keith to deliver Train Order No. 243 dated November 20, 1967 to Extra 8950 North, but instead required Mr. Keith to leave said train order "on train register outside of office window" at the end of his tour of duty, which orders were picked up later by train service employes.
2. Carrier shall compensate L. ;. Keith for a two hour call at one and one-half times pro rata r.,.e of the agent-operator position at Leland, Mississippi. Total $8.68.
1. Carrier violated the Agreement when on November 29, 1967 it failed and refused to permit Agent-Operator L. G. Keith to deliver Train Order Nos. 241, 240 and 239 dated Nov. 29, 1967 to Extra 9358 North, but instead required Mr. Keith to leave said train orders "on train register outside of office window" at the end of his tour of duty, which orders were picked up later by train service employes.
2. Carrier shall compensate L. G. Keith for a two hour call at one and one-half times pro rata rate of the agent-operator position at Leland, Mississippi. Total $8.68.
The dispute involved herein is predicated upon various provisions of the collective bargaining Agreement, as amended and supplemented, entered into by the parties effective dune 1, 1951. The claims were handled on the property in the usual manner up to and including conferences where they were disci:ssed with the highest officer design:.-ed by the Carrier to handle such claims.
The seven (7) claims incorporated into this sub!nuseion to your Board were handled separately on the property but because of their similarity they have been consolidated into one submission. These claims involve the pick-up of train orders and clearance cards by train service employes from the train register at a station where the telegrapher was off d:ity and the messengeling of train orders and clearance cards from an open station to one where the telegrapher was off duty, but available for a call, to perform the work in question, and to a point near the open office.
It is the contention of the Employes that the handling of train orders includes the sending, the receiving, the copying and the delivering by telegraphers, that such work is reserved exclusively to telegraphers and that the Agreement was violated when employes outside the effective Agreement performed this work on the dates specified. The Employes further contend that certain provisions of the collective bargaining Agreement require that the 18111 4
The company maintains a "GO" telegraph office at Central Station at Memphis, Tennessee. John"ton Yard, where no operator is employed, is located some three miles from Control Station. On the various claim dates special agents delivered to Johnston Yard train orders which had been copied by the operators at Central Station.
The union contends their agreement has been violated and the senior idle telegrapher is entitled to a day's pay cn the various claim dates.
L. C. Koitn is the regular agent-operator at Leland, Mississippi. working from 7:00 A. M. to 4:00 P. M., Monday through Saturday. J. H. Childs is the relief agent-operator at the rams location and has the same hours as the regular agent-operator.
On the various chum dates tl!e train dispatcher transmitted various train orders which were copied by tr,e claimants. The train orders -r,lo^g vvitii proper c~oa:-ance cards were left by the a·;ent on the train register and Picked ·.ip by the train crew after he had gone off duty. No other person entsi;le the, scope of the TCIJ agreement at an;; time halrdled the train orders prior to the eondnctor lcceiving same.
Claim tons been presented alleging the claimants are entitled to a call for not boing held on duty to personally deliver the various train orders and clearance cards.
OPINION OF BOARD: The confronting Agreement includes what is known in the industry as the Sdandar d Train Order Rule:
This Board has held the Rule, in nnamy Awards, to be specific, clear and unambiguous; and, further, it prevails over the Scope Rule which is general in nature.
In Claim No. 1 the "handl:rg" of train orders consisted of their delivery to the crew addressed by another train crew at a point where a telegrapher was employed but was not on duty. lve have held in a multtude of Awards that such action, under such circumstances, violated the Rule and tire teleg rapher assigned at the point of delivery was contractually entitled to pay for a call for each such occurrence. We, therefore, will sustain this Claim.
In Claim No. 2 train orders required f oi, trains at "Johnstoa Yard" were eopied by telegraphers at "GO" Telegraph Office and, by requirement of Carrier, were then carried to "Johnston Yard" for delivery to the addressed train
crew by employes not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement. The following uncontroverted statement by the General Chairman is evidence of probative value that "Johnston Yard" and the "GO" office are within the same terminal limits and part of the same station where "GO" Office is located:
Because many Awards of this Board hold that Rules identical or similar to Rule 4-A, supra, apply not only at the precise location of the telegraph office, but everywhere within the limits of the station, we find that the "handling" of train orders complained of in this Claim violated Rule 4-A. For example, see and compare, Award Nos. 12371, 12781, 12852, 13266 and 13314. Carrier did not put at issue the relief prayed for in paragraph 2 of the Claim. We will sustain the Claim as presented.
In Claims No. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 Carrier required a telegrapher to leave train orders attached to the train register book outside the office window for the crews addressed to pick up after he had gone off duty. For reasons stated in Award Nos. 11788, 13712, 13713, 13714 and 14678 we will sustain each of these Claims.
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