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 thereof in particular, when on June 3, 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 C. E. Roberts one days 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 1 - 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 1, Scope, of the Agreement is here quoted in full text:

"ARTICLE 1

(a) SCOPE

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, asistant 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.

Note (1): Positions of excepted chief dispatcher will be filled by employes holding seniority under this agreement.

At 10:35 A. M., June 17, 1969, Mr. C. E. Hurt, Trainmaster, Quanah, Texas, instructed No. 31 to set out two (2) cars at Olustec and do some spotting of the elevator.

No. 31 did as was instructed.

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.

CLAIM 38

This claim was presented upon the following reported Statement of Facts:

At 9:10 A. M., June 17, 1969, Mr. C. E. Hurt, Trainmaster, Quanah, Texas, instructed train No. 31 at Snyder, Oklahoma to bring what he has handy to Quanah. If possible bring 10 mty covered hoppers and 2 mty box.

No. 31 did as instructed.

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. 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.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: The claim presented on the property stated the facts as follows:

"At 12:47 P. M., June 3, 1969, party not within the Scope of our Agreement advised Clinton, Oklahoma where to list grain cars on Enid-Hobart Sub Division. Instructions that Agent Clinton abided by. These instructions issued by Enid, Oklahoma."

This is not a train order. It is merely a conversation between two employes of the Carrier that contained no direction or order for the movement or the distribution of the cars. It is comparable to the presentation of a switch list to a train crew, except here there was no communication with the train crew. It does not involve the "handling of trains and distribution of '°

equipment incident thereto" as contemplated in Article I, (b) 1 of the Agreement. See Award No. 3 of Public Law Board No. 588 on the property.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and bolds:

That the parties waived oral hearing;

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 the Carrier did not violate the Agreement.

AWARD