BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND STEAMSHIP
CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND
STATION EMPLOYES
(Formerly Transportation-Communication Employees Union)
1. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when on June 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 1.4, 15, 18, 7.9, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 1962 and continuing each date thereafter work belonging to employes covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement was removed from the Scope Rule and the Carrier required or permitted an employe not covered by the Agreement to establish a relay office at Oakland, California for the purpose of handling communications concerning Bi-level and Tri-level auto loaders.
2. (a). Claim is in behalf of the following Claimants: R. Ottino for June 4 and 25, 1962; J. F. Fahnhorst for June 5, 11 and 18, 1962; W. A. Anklam for June 6, 1962; C. H. Closs fox June 7 and 14, 162; I3. 0. Huber for June 8 anal 28, 1962; J. R. Binder for June 12, 1962; L. B. Hawks for June 13, 1962; D. E. Marcus fox June 15 and 21, 1962; D. v. Gray for June 19 and 26, 1962; G. Follmer for June 20 and 27, 1962; W. N. Walden for June 22, 1962; J. Bxakefield for June 29, 1962;
for eight (8) hours at time and one-half, at the rates specified in Rule 2, Section (d), for each of the foregoing dates.
The last date telephone :2onversations of the type subject of this .claim took place was on June 29, 1962 (last date specified in the claim), when the Agency at Milpitas was transferred from the jurisdiction of the District Freight Office art Oakland to the Distiict Freight Office at nearby San Jose.
4. By letter dated July 18, 1962 (Carrier's Exhibit "A"), Petitioner's District Chairman submitted claim to Carrier's Division Superintendent for claimants named in the above statement of claim on dates shown opposite their name therein "for eight (8) hours at time and one-half, at th-a rate specified in Rule 2, Section (d), for each of the foregoing dates," asserting that a "relay office" had ben established at Oakland for the purpose of "handling communications of record concerning Bi-level and Tri-level auto loaders," and by letter dated August 2, 1962 .(Carrier's Exhibit "B"), Carrier's Division Superintendent denied the claim.
5. By letter dated September 5, 1962 (Carrier's Exhibit "C"), Petitioner's General Chairman appealed the claim to Carrier's Assistant Manager of Personnel and by letter dated June 19, 1963 (Carrier's Exhibit "D"), the latter denied the claim.
OPINION OF BOARD: On June 4, 7.962, the following message -was received and copied in the 16th Street Oakland Freight Traffic Office by a clerical employe not holding seniority under the Telegraphers' Agreement:
This message was received from Milpitas, California. After receipt it was then transmitted by telephone to a clerk at the Central Freight Traffic Office in San Francisco, California.
On subsaquent dates in June 1962, similar messages were handled in the same manner upon which the claims are based and set out in the record.
Petitioner asserts that the work here involved, transmitting and/or receiving rnessagas, is work accruing to employes holding seniority under telegraphers' Agreement. Rules 1 (Scope) 2, 14 and 17, are cited.
Carrier contends that the telephone conversations, which are subject of this claim ware concerned solely with clerical matters and were the type of ordinary telephone conversations that have taken place between employes of various departments of the Carrier in connection with. their assigned duties throughout the life of the current agreement and many years prior thereto,
more particularly in the Freight Traffic Department. Further that the worl~ involved does not come within the Scope Rule.
After a thorough study of the record and all awards cited by the parties, we find that the telephone conversations, subject of this claim, were inquiries for information only and for the use of the Traffic Department concerning cars on hand at Milpitas. The situation here is different from that in Award 12611 cited by the Organization wherain that communication was o£ record and had to do with movement of trains. These conversations were not a communication of record, nor directly relate to movement of trains. There is no showing that T'elagraphers have handled these t;-pe of communications exclusively in the past.
FINDINGS- The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing therelon, and upon the whole record and al the evid-ance, finds and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes %vithin 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