THIRD DIVISION

David bolnick, Referee

(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.

(b) Gamier shall now compensate Train Dispatel^.~ex C=. r. Lasater ore day's ccnapensatrion at time, and one-half. the daily rate appliable to Assistant Chief Dispatcher for said violation on the rest day of Claimant.

"ARTICLE 1

This agw~_-ame.nt shall govern the hours of service and wo-xking conditions of train dispatchers. The term `train dispatcher' as hereinafter used, shall include night chief, assistant chief, trick, relief and extra train dispatc:xers. It is agread that one chief, dispatcher in each dispatching office shall be e:~=cepted from the scope and provisions of this agreement.

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

The various reasons given .for the declination of this claim are set forth in the Carrier's letter Noven.bei: 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 traimnaster 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 i:eproduced.)

OPINTION OF BOARD: The claim as presented to the Carrier reads:

"At 9:10 A. rii., June 17, 1969, Mr. C. E. Hurst, Trainmaster, Quanah, Texas, instructed train No. 31 at Sny&r, Oklahoma to bring 10 mty covered hoppers and 2 mty box."

This message is neither a train order nor does it involve a "distribution of power and equipment incidental to the handling of a train. It is merely an order to pick up cars, which this Board has repeatedly held. is not work which belongs e7cclusively to Train Dispatchers under the Scope Rule. See Awards 18038, 18 689, 18692, 18690 and 18593.

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 A djustnient Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

That the Carrier did not violate the Agreement.

AWARD

Claim denied.

NATION-AL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of THIRD DIVISION

ATTEST: E. A. Killeen

Executive Secretary