e Award No. 18461

Docket No. TD-18869

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

THIRD DIVISION

David Dolnick, Referee

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. w. walpert 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 1, Scope, of the Agreement is here quoted in full text:

"ARTICLE I

(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, 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.

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

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 filed on the property stated the facts as follows:

"Party outside the Scope of our Agreement instructed Agent, Hobart, Oklahoma what to do with empty box cars.

Agent, Hobart distributed these cars as instructed by employe not covered by our Agreement. This employe was at Enid, Oklahoma."

Who instructed the Agent at Hobart, Oklahoma and what were the instructions? The only evidence in the record is a copy of a handwritten note made by the trick train dispatcher, presumably at Hobart, Oklahoma, which reads:

"120'5 P. M. 6-3-69

Car Distributor Enid instructed HB (Hobart) what to do with rely box cars."

This is merely a conversation between two employes of the Carrier concerning the disposition of empty box cars. It does not reveal what ws done with the empty cars, who, if anyone, ordered the cars, or who supervised "the handling of trains and distribution of * * * equqipment" Certainly, employes other than train dispatchers deal with and record the existence, the locations and the disposition of cars without invloving the above described handling as provided in Article 1, (b) 1 (Scope) of the Agreement. A telephone conversation of this kind is not one contemplated in the Scope Rule and is not a violation thereof. See Award 3 of Public Law Board No. 588 on this property.

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 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

That the Agreement was not violated.

AWARD