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 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 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 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 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 June 10, 1969 the Operator at Wichita Yard, a member of another class and craft, instructed the Operator at Fredonia, Kansas to give No. 337 a message to the effect that, if, there were 30 box cars at Beaumont to bring them to Wichita, Kansas on June 10, 1969. The Operator at Fredonia gave the instructions to Train 337 as instructed."


We held in Award No. 4 of Public Law Board No. 588 on this property that:




We also said in Award No. 18593 that this is "not a message involving the movement of the train * * * nor does it involve the `distribution of power and equipment' incidental to the supervision of the handling of that train * * *" Also see Awards 18689, 18690, 18692 and Awards 18, 22, 23, 25 and 26 of Public Law Board No. 588.


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 14th day of January 19 72.
 Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, 111. Printed in U.S.A.
 18938 16