AMERICAN TRAIN DISPATCHERS ASSOCIATION

ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

(a) The St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company (hereinafter "the Garri·ar") violated the effective Agreement between the parties, Article 1 thereof in particular, when on June 16, 1969 it required and/or permitted other than those covered there, to perform work covered by said Agreement.

(b) Carrier shall now compensate Train Dispatcher K. E. Kellett one day's compensation at time and one-half the daily rate applicable to Assistant Chief Dispatcher for said violation on the rest day of Claimant.

"ARTICLE I

(a) SCOPE

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 (I): Positions of excepted chief dispatcher will be filled by employes holding seniority under this agreement.

(b) DEFINITIONS:

1. Chief, night chief and assistant chief dispatcher positions:

No. 38. The ~trainmaster who is alleged to have committed the violations in Claims 37 and 38 is one of the divi,cion officers who, as such, has responsible control over the operation of a divi:Jon, 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 traiumas,ter exercise such responsible control only though employes of the train dispatchers' class, nor do the Rules of the Train Dispatchers' Agreement place such a hindrance or limitation upon him.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: On June 16, 1969, the Trainmastcr at Enid, Oklahoma, W. H. Hulsey, issued the following instructions:

"Trainmaster W. H. Hulsey, Enid, Oklahoma, lined up to deadhead GP 557 and caboose 1128 on No. 638 to Perry to go to work at 10:00 A. M. with a deadhead crew also."

Although the Carrier has stated that there "is no confirmation in Carrier's records of the alleged advice or instructions," the record pretty well shows that the instructions were i sued. A memorandum of the train dispatcher reads:

"6/16/69

WHH lined up to DH GP 557 and cab 1128 on No. 638 to Perry to go to work at 10:00 A. M. DH crew also. WITH instructed crew what to do and when to go to work - lined up YD to DH Unit - Cab & Crew."

The Trainmasters instructions definitely involves a "distribution of power and equipment" which, under the Scope Rule, belongs to Dispatchers. The instructions should have been issued through the Dispatcher. Carrier clearly violated the Agreement.

It is the position of the Carrier that the Claimant is not entitled to compensation at the time and one-half rate. If he had been called to perform the work he would have been paid for a call under Article 11, Section (b) 3 of the Agreement.

The identical issue was before 1'ablic Law Board No. 088 on this property. In Awarl No. 32 that Board said:

"Basically, a claim for a violation such as we have here should be under the call rule, Article 11, Section (b) 3 of the schedule agreement. The circumstances, here, however, are somewhat different. There is some question whether an extra man was available. Further, there have been a large number of comparable contract violations on this property which should not be py.nmitted to continue with impunity. Under these circumstances, a proper penalty is for one day'_ pay at straight time and not at the overtime rate. since the claimant actually performed no work."

Trainmaster, W. H. Hulsey, is one of eeveral Traimnasters who have consistently violated the Scope Rule. For this reason, the proper penalty in this case is one day's pay at the straight time rate and not at the overtime rate. Claimant actually performed no work.

That the parties waived oral hearing;

That the Agreement was violated.

AWARD