.la.. Award No. 19089
 Docket No. TD-18897





PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the American Train Dispatchers Association that:

(a) The St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company (hereinafter "the Canier") 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 W. L. Horine 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 ixtween 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.


Note (1): Positions of excepted chief dispatcher will be filled by employes holding seniority under this agreement.

At 10:35 A. M., June 17, 1969, Mr. C. E. Hurt. Trainmaster, Quanah, Texas, instructed No. 31 to set out two ('?) cars at Olustee and do some spotting of the elevator.

The various reasons given for declination of this claim are set forth in the Carrier's declination letter November 19, 1.969, 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.




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











The above instructions were issued by the Trainmaster to the Chief Train Dispatcher, H. 0. Buzbee. They were not issued to any train crew or crews. It is only reasonable to assume that the train crews acted through the Train Dispatcher and not directly from the Trainmaster. No evidence in the record permits any other conclusion. A Trainmaster has every right to issue informational and instructional messages, See Awards Nos, 1, 3 and 9 of Public Law Board No. 588, on this property.


19089 16
 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

    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.
 19089 17