STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committe of the Transportation-Communication Division, BRAG on the Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company, T-C 5752, that:
The dispute herein is predicated on various provisions of the collective bargaining agreement entered into by the parties effective September 1, 1949. Claim was submitted to the proper officers of the Carrier, at the time and in the usual manner of handling, as required by agreement rules and applicable provisions of law. The claim was discussed in conference between representa tives of the parties on November 14, 1969.
The controversy arose on Saturday, June 14, 1969, when a clerical empl'oye in the Carrier's Muskogee, Oklahoma, yard office used the telephone to transmit the consist of train No. 3 to a telegrapher at Denison, Texas.
Employes contended in the handling on the property, and now contend before the Board, that certain provisions of the collective bargaining agreement were violated. (These provisions are set out in Section (d) hereof, Rules Relied On.) Carrier contended (1) that 'Muskogee Yard or Terminal has never been a "closed office" within the intent and maning of Rule 1 (d) of the
The claim was declined by Agent-Trainmaster E. V. Olzawski on June 25, 1969; appealed to Superintendent T. C. Todd on June 30, 1969; was declined by Superintendent Todd on July 10, 1969; was appealed to the Manager of Personnel on July 15, 1969; declined by the undersigned on August 25, 1969; discussed and declined in conference with the undersigned on November 14, 1969.
Attached hereto and made a part hereof, is copy of all correspondence exchanged by the parties is handling this matter as Carrier's Exhibit "A."
Attached hereto and made a part hereof, is copy of Special Board of Adjustment Awards and other exhibits referred to herein as Carrier's Exhibits "B" and "C."
OPINION OP BOARD: The record in the dispute is voluminous, with each side presenting extensive arguments and citing numerous decisions which it contends supports its position.
The dispute arose as a result of a clerk in the yard office at Muskogee, Oklahoma, transmitting by telephone a consist to the telegrapher at Ray Yard, Denison, Texas. Continuous telegraph service is maintained at North and South towers, Muskogee. North tower is located about one mile north of the yard office and South tower is located about one mile south of the yard office, all within the satre terminal. The Claimant was regularly assigned to the first shift at South tower. Saturday, June 14, 1969, the date of the occurrence was one of Claimant's regularly assimtcd work days, and the alleged violation occurred about fifteen minutes prior to the start of his work day.
A telegraph office was formerly maintained at the yard office, but was discontinued some years prior to the occurrence giving rise to the claim herein. It appears that at the time of the claim and prior thereto telegraphers from North or South tower were sent to the yard office to perform the work necessary to transmit communications from Muskogee Yard to other points. Even though. the actual transmission was by I.B.M. equipment, telegraphers were used to activate the eqn:pmcnt. Flnwever, on the date involved herein the telegrapher from South tower did rot go to 'lie yard offce because of trouble having developed on the I.B.M. equipment. The clerk then transmitted the consist by telephone to the operator at Ray Yard, Denison, Texas, which resulted in the claim.
From our study of the re:ord we are convinced that the transmission of consists at Musicogee yard office is considered to be telegrhaper's work, the parties being in agreement that ordinarily telegraphers are sent from North or South towers to perform the communication work.
1°r:o 1(d) of the agreement ;specifically prohibits eniplo,,-<·s other than telegraphers from handlin- messages by telephone at "closed offices- or nontelegraph offices." With telegraphers assigned the work of handling messages at the yard office, we must agree with argument on behalf of the Petitioner that the yard office is "an office which is kept open a part of the day or night" as referred to in the "Note" under Rule 1(d). We find, therefore, that the agreement was violated and tile claim will be sustained.
This Award is based solely upon the facts as they existed in this particular case and is not to be construed as attempting to define a "closed office" under any other set of facts or circumstances.