>~- _. Award No. 19088
 Docket No. TD-18896





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 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, 1958 and again revised effective October 1, 196:5, 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 agrzoment 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 or excepted chi-of 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 hindrawe or limitation upon him.




OPINION OF BOARD: Employes allege that the Trainmaster at Enid, Oklahoma issued the following message:












Even if it can be assumed that the crew acted upon the message from the Traimnaster and not from H. 0. Buzbee, the Chief Train Dispatcher, it is still not a train order nor does it involve the "distribution of power and equipment." It is merely an instruction to pick up and set out cars which, we have held, is an incidental part of a Trainmaster's duties and is not a violation of the Scone Rule. See Awards Nos. 18938, 18689, 18593, 18690 and 18692 as well as Awards Nos. 4, 18, 22, 23, 25 and 26 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


19088 16
 That the Carrier did not violate the Agreement.






Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of March 1972.

 Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, Ill. Printed in U.S.A.
 19088 17