(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.
EMPLOYE'S 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 Porte 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:
This agreement shall govern the hours of service and working conditions of train dispatchers. The term `train dispatcher' as herein after used, shall include night chief, assistant chief, trick, relief and extra train dispatchers. It is agreed that one chief dispatcher in each dispatcher 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.
The various reasons given far declination of this claim are set forth in the Carriers 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 Carricr'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.
OPINION OF BOARD: Employes allege that the Trainmaster at Quanah, Texas issued the following instructions to the Operators at Quanah:
This issue here is similar to the one in Docket TD-18866 which was thoroughly discussed and adjudicated in Award No, 18458. The right to issue call instructions does not belong exclusively to Dispatchers under the Scope Rule. The Findings in Award No, 18458 are applicable here and are affirmed.
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;