STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the American Train Dispatchers association that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is an Agreement in effect between the parties, a 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.
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:
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.
OPINION OF BOARD: Employes allege that on the date of the claim "the Trainmaster at Quanah, Texas, via dispatchers' telephone instructed employes at Lawton, Oklahoma to line-up tonnage for No. 36 and the crew on No. 36 complied with these instructions."
For the purpose of discussing the substantive issue, we shall assume that this telephone message was made. The fact is that the cars were already at Lawton, Oklahoma, the message was to "employes at Lawton" and not to the train crew of No. 36. It may have been to the Yardmaster at Lawton who in turn instructed the Yardmen to lin-up care to meet the tonnage of the No. 36 engines. This certainly is not work which belongs exclusively to Dispatchers under the Scope Rule. It did not involve the handling of trains or the distribution of power and equipment incident thereto. And it was not a movement of a train by a train order.
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