- Award No. 19092
Docket No. TD-18900
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

 THIRD DIVISION

 David Dolnich, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE
 AMERICAN TRAIN DISPATCHERS ASSOCIATION
 ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim o£ 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/ox permitted other than those covered thereby, to perform work covered by said Agreement.


(b) Carrier shall now compensate Train Dispatcher J. R. Lyden 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.


E1Vy1PL0YDS' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is an Agreement in effect between the parties, copy of which is on file with this ward, and the same is incorporated into this Ex Par6e Submission as though fully set out herein.

 Article J. - Scope is identical in the Agreement effective September 1 199, :revised as of January 1, 1.953 and again revised effective October 1, 1965, insofar as the rules material to this dispute axe concerned.

 For the Board's ready reference, Article 1, Scope, o£ the Agreement is here quoted in full text:

 "ARTICLE 1

 (a) SCOPE

This agze·~ment shall. govern the hours o£ service arid working conditions of train dispatchers. The term `train dispatcher' as hereinafter us,&,, shall include night chief, assistant chief. trick relief and extra train dispatchers. It is agre2d that one chief, dispatcher in each di.spatclxing ofzice shall be excepted from the scope and provisions of this agreement.


Note (1): Positians of excepted chief dispatcher will be filled by em;Ployes holding seniority under this agreement.




The various :reasons given for ti~2 declination of this claim are szt. forth in the Carrier's letter November 19, 1969, copy attached as Carrier's Exhibit No. 38. The traitnuaster 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 v-hen 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 Dispatcltws' Agreement place such a himdrar~ce or limitation upon him.







Employer lave not identiuied the employ e who sent the alleged message o.° his position. Carrier, net only does the Carrier have no record of this alleged message, but has shown that "no Work Extra 510 operated on the claim date," Employer have failed to prove the merits of the claim by a pr2 pcnd2rance of evidence.


FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Boaa·d, upon the whole r,~;:ord and all the evidence, finds and holds:



That the Caries and the Emlaioyes involved, in this dispute axe xespectiv;ay Carrier an·d Employer within tae mea;aing of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 193 4;


'That this Division. of the Adjustment Board has ;jurisdiction over the dispute in v olved herein; and


That the allegations in Employer submissions are not sufficient to support a consideration and a determination of the merits of the claim.








Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of March 1972.
 Is.eenan Printing Co., Chicago, III. Printed in U.S.A.
 19092 16