PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

 TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION DIVISION, BRAC

NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY

(LAKE REGION)


STATEMENT OF CLAI-11: Claim of the General Committee of the Transportation-Communication Division, BRAG, on the Norfolk and Western Railway (Lake Region), TC-6712, that:


1. Carrier is violating the Agreement between the parties when, it required and/or permits employes having no rights thereunder to use the telephone to receive "OS" of trains and instructions on time crews are to be called at Peru, Indiana.







The Agreement between the parties, effective January 1, 1969, as amended and supplemented, is on file with your Board and by this reference is made a part hereof.


Originally entered into by the New York, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad, and the Order of Railroad Telegraphers representing the telegrapher employes on the Nickel Plate, Lake Erie and Western and Clover Leaf Districts, Carrier merged with the Norfolk and Western Railway and as a condition thereof the Norfolk and Western Railway agreed to assume all obligations thereunder as though it were an original party. The Organization merged with and became the Transportation-Communication Division of the Brotherhood of Railway and Airline Clerks. The Agreement has been maintained in full force and effect throughout.


Claim was timely presented, progressed, including conference with highest officer designated by Carrier to receive appeals, and has remained declined. The Employes, therefore, appeal to your Honorable Board for adjudication.

The Employes' time limit for handling this claim had been extended from time to time up to December 31, 1969 for further handling if they so desired.




OPINION OF BOARD: Prior to June 17, 1964, telegraphers were em
 ployed on a 24 hour basis at Peru, Indiana. Subsequent to that date, Carrier
 abolished the third shift Operator-Cleric position; re-arranged the hours of
 the first shift Operator-Clerk position from 9:00 A. M. to 5:00 P. M.; the
 second shift Operator-Cleric position from ;:00 P.1 'J. to 3:00 A. M. and re
 quired the first shift Operator-Cleric to copy and receive train orders and
 leave them at a designated place to be picked up by train crews after the
 Operator-Cleric went off duty. Carrier allowed claims filed by the Organiza
 tion as a result of train crew members handling train orders. Carrier then
 re-arranged the hours of first trick Operator-Clerk from 10:00 A. M. to 6:00
 P. M. and the hours of second trick Operator-Cleric to 1:00 A. M. to 9:0(1 A. M.
 No Operator-Clerk was on duty from 6:00 P, ill. to 1:00 A. 111. It appears from
 the record that the alleged violation concerns itself with Train No. 83 which
 originates at Michigan City, Indiana, 84 miles North of Peru, Indiana, and
 terminates at Indianapolis, Indiana, 70 miles South of Peru. The train and
 engine crew of Train No. 83 are changed ::t Peru and this change requires a
 90 minute advanced notice be given the crew at Peru. Argos, Indiana is ap
 proximately 36 miles North of Pcru, ln;liane. The Cleric on duty is advised
 of the approximate arrival time of Train No. 83 at Peru; tile dispatcher at
 Muncie so advises thc· Clerk at Peru who then calls the c~ew. The Organiza
 tion contends that the transmittal and reception of this type message is re
 served exclusively to Telegraphers. Carrier contends that the Scope Rule in
 volved herein is general in nature and that custom, practice and tradition
 allow other than Telegraphers to transmit and receive these messages. The
 Organization contends that the Telegrapher at Argos calls the Clerk at Peru.
 Carrier contends that if the Craw for Train No. 83 at Peru is to be called
 before 2:30 A. M., the el.: patcher at Muncie so a~7:·ises the Clerk at Peru, who
 in turn calls the crew accordingly.

The purpose of the messages involved in this dispute Nvas to ascertain the time for calling a crew to handle the train South from Peru. These messages did not purport to reroute, initiate, terminate, delay or accelerate a train and, therefore, did not pertain to a train movement, These messages were for the sole and only purpose of supplying information to a crew in order that the affected crew could more efficiently perform their duty of being ready to report on time. This type message is not reserved to Telegraphers, unless Carrier has historically, traditionally and customarily conferred such messages on Telegraphers. The Organization contends that there is no need to show such custom on a system wide basis for the reason that only one point is involved in this dispute and that a similar situation does not exist elsewhere on this property. This contention is disputed by Carrier and, therefore, the question to be resolved is whether or not the Organization has the burden of proving a system wide practice, or does the past practice at Peru only need be proven.


We have carefully reviewed all of the cited Awards touching on this question and conclude that the better reasoned Awards require proof of exclusivity on a system wide basis - not one point only - when the Scope Rule does not specifically confer the involved work on Claimants. See Awards 10918, 11882, and =1885. It has already been concluded that the involved messages are not -reserved exclusively to Telegraphers in the Scope Rule. The


18368 22
 Organization did not attempt to prove exclusivitY· on a system wide basis. Therefore, having failed to sustain their burden of proof, this claim will 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









Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of January 1971.

 Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, 111. Pr:ntod in U.S.A.
 18368 23