.. _,~
Award No. 19087
Docket No. TD-18895
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
David Dolnick, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
AMERICAN TRAIN DISPATCHERS ASSOCIATION
ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the American Train Dispatchers
(a) The St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company (hereinafter
Association that:
"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.
(b) Carrier shall now compensate Train Dispatcher .1. E. Dickerson one day's compensation at time and one-half the daily rate appliable to Assistant Chief Dispatcher for said violation on the rest day
of Claimant.
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 1-Scope is identical in the Agreement effective September 1,
1949, rcvised 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:
"ARTICLE 1
(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 (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 re: pon~sible 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: The message complained of by Employes, issued by
the Trainmaster at Enid, Oklahoma, reads:
"EN A 995 SO ;317 06122/9 2100
En Enid, June 22-fig, 7:30 P. M.
HOB SO
Perry SwitcheT to be called at Perry for 8:00 A. M., June 23.
W. H. H."
This is a message from the Trainmaster to H. O, Buzbee, the Chief Train
Dispatcher. It is not a violation of the Scope Rule. See Awards No, 1, 3 and 9
of Public Law Board No. 588, on the property and the Award of this Board No.
19085.
The message is also an instruction to issue a call which we held in Award
18458 is an essential part of the duties of a Trainmaster and is not such a duty
which belongs exclusively to Chief Dispatchers under the Scope Rule. Also see
Awards 18565, 18592, 18688 asd 18939.
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole
record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
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 Carrier did not violate the Agreement.
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: E. A. Killeen
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of March 1972.
Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, 111. Printed in U.S.A.
19087
1f~