Award No. 19086
 Docket No. TD-18894




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 22, 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 tis 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 ispatchers. 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.

This claim was denied not only for the reasons stated in the declination of Claim 11, but also for the lack of confirmation in the Carrier's records of the alleged occurrence and .for the additional reasons that no work Extra 510 operated on the claim date and the designated claimant is not the real party in interest even if the claim were otherwise meritorious. Copy of the Carrier's declination letter November 19, 1969 is attached hereto as Carrier's Exhibit No. 36.










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 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. (Exhibits not reproduced.)


OPINION OF BOARD: Employes' allege that the following message was issued by Trainmaster W. H. Hulsey at Enid, Oklahoma:














19086 16





This is a message from the Trainmaster to H. O. Buzbee, the Chief Train Dispatcher which has been held on this property, not to violate the Scope Rule. The facts here are identical with those in Award No. 19085. The conclusions therein are similar with Awards Nos. 1, 3 and 9 of Public Law Board No. 588, on this property.


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 24th day of March 1972.

 Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, Ill. Printed in U.S.A.
 19086 17