:;= 3.e Award No. 18690
 Docket No. TD-18882




PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


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 9, 1969 it required and/or permitted other than those covered thereby, to perform work covered by said agreement.



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 Parts 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:



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.


what he has handy to Quanah. If possible bring 10 mty covered hoppers and 2mty box.

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 trahimaster 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 June 9, 1969 an employe outside the scope of the Agreement, Mr. Wilson, instructed No. 664 to pick up every place that had wheat reariy. The crew of train No. 604 did as was instructed by Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson is not identified. He could be a Train Dispatcher. For the purpose of adjudicating this claim we assume that he was not an employe covered by the Train Dispatchers' Agreement.


We held in Award No. 18591 that a similar message is neither a train order nor a "distribution of powder and equipment" provided for in the Scope Rule. That finding is applicable here and is 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;


That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and










Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 10th day of September 1971.

 Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, Ill. Printed in U.S.A.

 18690 16