(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 19, 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 1 - 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.
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 train-master 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.
Carrier alleges that Dewayne Wilson has "disclaimed knowledge of this incident" Mr. Wilson was Manager, Transportation Quality Control. On August 21, 1969, he wrote to the Superintendent of Transportation with regard to this claim, in part, as follows:
The burden of proof is upon the employes. A mere assertion that Mr. Wilson issued the instructions it not evidence. Testimony from the crew of Train 663 that they received and executed the instructions from Mr. Wilson would have been the best evidence in view of Mr. Wilson's disclaimer. No preponderance of evidence exists upon which this Board may make a determination in favor of the Employes. For the lack of such evidence, the claim must be dismissed.
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
That the allegations in Employes submissions are not sufficient to support a consideration and a determination of the merits of the claim.