(a) The St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company (hereinafter "the Carrier") violated the effective Agreement between the parties, Article 1 thereof in particular, when or. June 3, 1M9 it required and/ or permitted other than those covered thereby, to perform work covered by said Agreement..
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.
This agreement shall govern the hours of service and working conditions of train dispatchers. The term `train dispatcher' as hereinafter used, shall include night chief, assistant chief, trick, relief and extra train dispatchers. It is agreed that one chief dispatcher in each dispatching office shall be excepted from the scope and provisions of this agreement.
The various reasons given for the declination of this- claim are set forth in the Carrier's letter November 19, 1969, copy attached as Carrier's Exhibit No. 33. 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 the Trainmaster at Enid, Oklahoma issued the following message of instructions to Train No. 663:
Carrier at first contended, that it had "no record to establish that the instructions were issued." But Employes presented a written copy of the oral message to the Direteor of Labor Relations. This is nowhere categorically denied.
The message is an order for the "distribution of equipment" which belongs exclusively to train dispatchers under Article I (Scope) (b) 1 of the Agreement. It is also tantamount to a train order because it involves the movement of the train. See Award No. 1 of Public Law Board No. 588 on this property. This was not an ordinary and customary message to pick up and set out cars with a copy of the message to the dispatcher.
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