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 thereof in particular, when on June 4, 1969 it required and/or permitted other than those covered thereby, to perform work covered by said Agreement.
(b) Carrier shall now compensate Train Dispatcher P. J. Nerren one day's compensation at time and one-half the daily rate applicable to Assistant Chief Dispatcher for said violation on the rest day of Claimant.
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 Parte Submission as though fully set out herein.
Article I -Scope is identical in the Agreement effective September 1, 1949, revised as of January 1, 1953 and again revised effective October 1, 1965, insofar as the rules material to this dispute are concerned.
For the Board's ready reference, Article I, Scope, of the Agreement is here quoted in full text:
The various reasons given for declination of this claim are set forth in the Carrier's declination letter November 19, 1969, copy attached as Carrier's Exhibit No. 37.
The various reasons given for the declination of this claim are set forth in the Carrier's letter November 19, 1969, copy attached at Carrier's Exhibit No. 38. The trainmaster who is alleged to have committed the violations in Claims 37 and 38 is one of the division officers who, as such, has responsible control over the operation of a division, or a terminal, or of a major activity within an operating division, and when acting in the discharge of his duties and responsibilities, it is not mandatory that a division trainmaster exercise such responsible control only through employes of the train dispatchers' class, nor do the Rules of the Train Dispatchers' Agreement place such a hindrance or limitation upon him.
OPINION OF BOARD: Employes allege that on June 4, 1969 the Trainmaster at Quanah, Texas issued the following instructions to the Operators at Quanah:
Although the Carrier alleges that it has no record that the instructions were issued, we shall, for the purpose of discussing the substantive issue, assume that the Operators did comply with the message.
Trainmasters have every right to issue instructions when trains should be called. That is an essential part of his customary and regular duties. These are not duties which belong exclusively to Dispatchers under the Scope Rule. See Award No. 3 of Public Law Board No. 588 involving the same parties, the same facts and the same rule.
Similarly, the direction to the Operator to have the crew of Train No, 36 pick up cars at stated locations is also not a violation of the Dispatchers' Scope Rule. It is a common practice on this and other properties for the Agent and/or the Operator to issue a switch list to the train crew showing the cars to be set out and/or picked up at the listed locations. This is not a "distribution of equipment" belonging exclusively to the Dispatchers. The Scope Rule was not violated.
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