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 I thereof in particular, when on June 10, 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 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:



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.





The various reasons given for declination of this claim are set forth in the Carrier's 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 Carrier's letter November 19, 1969, copy attached as Carrier's Exhibit No. 38. The traimnaster 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: The Trainmaster at Joplin, Missouri to the crew of train No. 331:











A similar claim on this property was denied in Award No. 4 of Public Law Board No. 588. There an Agent issued a message to a train crew, with a copy to the Chief Dispatcher, "to pick up designated cars." That Board held that such a message is not work related exclusively to Train Dispatchers. It is not a train order involving the movement of a train nor is it incidental to the duties of a Chief, Night Chief and Assistant Chief Dispatcher. Whether


18692 16

the message directs the crew to pick up specific cars or a number of unidentified cars it is still an order to pick up which is work not exclusively reserved to Train Dispatchers under their Scope Rule. The same principle applies to setting out the specific car at a desingated point.


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 loth day of September 1971.

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

 18692 17