·®._. Award No. 18564
Docket No. TD-18870
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
David Dolnick, 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 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 L. L. Chronister 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 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:
"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.
This claim was presented on 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 only 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 responsbile control only through employes of the train dispatchers' class,
nor do the Rules of the Train Dipatchers' Agreement place such a hindrance
or limitation upon him.
(Exhibits not reproduced.)
OPINION OF BOARD:
Employes allege that on June 3, 1969 a Trainmaster issued the following message of instructions to the Conductor and
Engineer of Train No. 36:
"C & E No. 36 - Quanah
Fill on wheat at Eldorado, Creta, Oulstee, Headrick and Snyder.
C. E. H."
Although the Carrier alleges that it has no confirmation of the above
message, we shall, for the purpose of discussing the substantive issue, assume
that the message was sent and that the train crew did comply with order.
The record shows that the equipment was already at the respective
designations. And more important, the train dispatcher knew and had a copy
of the message at Quanah. On a copy in his hand writing the train dispatcher
wrote:
"This message was read to me when I cleared No. 36 at Quanah
on June 3, 1969."
Under these circumsLnees, it must be concluded that the message was
neither a distribution. of equipment nor a handling of the train. The movement of the train was actually under the control of the train dispatcher. Rule
1 - Scope - was not violated.
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;
18564 16
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
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: E. A. Killeen
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of May 1971.
Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, Ill. Printed in U.S.A.
18564 17