OW see
Award No. 18451
Docket No. TD-18718
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
John H. Dorsey, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
AMERICAN TRAIN DISPATCHERS ASSOCIATION
ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the American Train Dispatchers
Association that:
(a) The St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company (hereinafter
"the Carrier") violated the effective Agreement between the parties,
Article 1 (b) thereof in particular, when on July 23, 1968, July 26,
1968 and August 1, 1968 it required and/or permitted an employe
not within the scope of the Agreement to perform work covered
thereby.
(b) Because of said violation Carrier shall now compensate the
senior
available extra
train dispatcher then available one day's compensation at pro rata rate applicable to assistant chief dispatcher
position for each violation.
(c) In the event no extra train dispatchers were available on the
days of said violation, Carrier shall compensate the senior assigned
train dispatcher then available because of observance of his assigned
weekly rest days, one day's compensation at time and one-half of
daily rate applicable to assistant chief dispatcher position for each of
the days wherein the Agreement was violated.
(d) The respective individual claimants entitled to compensation
herein claimed shall be determined by a joint check of the Carrier's
records.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is an Agreement in effect
between the parties, copy of which is on file with this Board, and the same
is incorporated into this Ex Parts Submission as though fully set out herein.
For the Board's ready reference Article I of said Agreement is here
quoted in full:
"ARTICLE I
(a) SCOPE
This agreement shall govern the hours of service and working
conditions of train dispatchers. The term `train dispatcher' as here-
CARRIER'S STATEMENTS OF FACTS:
July 23, 1968 assistant superintendent issued telegraphic advice that the
regular telegrapher would report for work on this regular assignment July
24, 1968 and that the relieving telegrapher would return to the extra board.
On Friday, July 26, 1968 and on Thursday, August 1, 1968 the assistant
superintendent notified the regular telegrapher to protect week end work at
Hugo, Oklahoma on call basis as needed. Under Article 11 (12) of the Telegraphers' Schedule, a telegrapher not assigned to work on rest days and/or
specified holidays is not required to be available for service on such days
unless given advance notice to be available.
CLAIM 2
December 13, 1968 the Trainmaster at Enid, Oklahoma issued telegraphic
advice to the chief dispatcher and the Agent at Winfield, Kansas notifying the
latter of a change in his assigned ivaark period effective December 16, 1968.
CI, 0IM 3
January 16, 1969 Trainmaster at Enid, Oklahoma issued telegraphic advice arranging vacation relief for the regular Agent at 0'Keene, Oklahoma,
commencing January 20, 1969.
CLAIM 4
December 28, 1968 the Trainmaster at Enid, Oklahoma issued telegraphic
advice arranging for emergency relief of the Agent at Clinton, Oklahoma to
permit her to accompany her husband to an Oklahoma City hospital for
surgery.
OPINION OF BOARD:
This dispute involves the same parties, issues
and Agreement as in Award No. 18448. For reasons stated in that Award the
Claim is denied.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole
record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
That the Carrier and the Employrs 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
That Carrier did not violate the Agreement.
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: E. A. Killeen
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of March 1971.
18451 4
LABOR MEMBERS' DISSENT TO
AWARDS 18448, 18449, 18450, 18451
DOCKETS TD-18719, TD-18716, TD-18717, TD-18718
The majority's opinion is completely erroneous.
The majority's opinion refers to:
"* * * the transmittal of the message * * *"
and
"*
* * that the transmittal of directory messages * * *"
The transmission of messages was not the issue of the disputes. The
employes never took that position. The issue was persons not within the scope
of the agreement performing work covered therein. The work in question was
the decision involving the supervision of employes, not transmittal of messages after the decision was made.
For this and other reasons, this dissent is registered.
George P. Kasamis
G. P. Kasamis
Labor Member
Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, Ill. Printed In U.S.A.
18451 5