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 16, 7.362 and continuing each date thereafter as shown by the Carrier's records, work belonging to employer covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement was removed from the Scope Rule and the Carrier required or permitted a clerical employe, Hayden, Arizona, and a clerical employ e at extension telephone No. 286, Tucson, Arizona, employes not covered by the Agreement, to handle communications of record consisting of train and enginemen time slips.
6. The fact that this happened the first time at Hayden in June 1962 is no different than the usual practice elsewhere on the property that has been in effect throughout the life of the current agreement and many years prior thereto.
`l. $y letter dated September 29, 1962, Carrier's Exhibit "$," Petitioner's District ~Ch~airman presented a claim to Carrier's Division Superintendent in behalf of Agent Telegrapher 1Z,. hfT. DeHart or his successor at Hayden and Printer Machine -Opexator~Clerk E. L. Little at Tucson each for a "special pall" on date involved, and on each date subsequent to June 16, 1962, when similar work performed at location involved claim in behalf of the senior qualified regularly assigned telegrapher at locations where work performed for a "special call" under the regular call rule or for "eight hours' compensation" under the rest day call rule, whichever is applicable (no claimant named), asserting Carrier violated the current agreement when it permitted and continues to permit employes of another class or craft to handle information from time ~x°eturns at Hayden and Tucson by telephone- By letter dated February 14, 1963 (Carrier's Exhibit "C"), the Carrier's Division Superintendnt ·denied the claim.
8. $y letter dated March 20, 190 (Carrie'r's Exhibit "D"). the Petitioner's General Chairman appealed the claim to Carrier's Assistant Manager of Personnel, and by letter dated June 6, 7.963 (Car'rier's Exhibit "E"), the latter denied the claim, stating in effect that the handling complained of was in accordance with long standing practice on the property and there was no basis for the claim submitted. The denial, through error in transcription, states conversation took place on date involved between clerk at Hay-dell and timekeeper at El Paso. The latter location should have read "Tucson."
OPINION Oh BOARD: At Hayden, Arizona there is a position of agentbeleg°xaplxer, assigned 8:30 A. M. to 5:30 P. AL (one hour meal period), work w·eh beginning on Monday, assigned rest days Saturday and &,,nday, not filled on rest days. At Tucson, Arizona there is a telegraph office providing continuous service around-the-clock, seven days per week, zvibh several positions uxxde'x the Agreement.
On June 16, 1962, at 8:-13 A. DL, a clerical employe, Hayden, Arizona, telephoned a clerical employe at Tucson, Arizona, giving information from the Time Return dz Delay Report of Engine Ernplo~^zs and Train Employee. The two reports involved were submitted by conductor and engineer of the train crew assigned to work at Hayden, covering service: performed on last day of pay roll period, June 1.5, 1962.
Petitioner contends that the Carrier violated the agreement b;aiveen the parties when work belonging to employes covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement was removed from the Scope Pule -when Gamier permitted of required clerical employes, not covered by the agreement to handle communications of retard consisting of train and enginemen tine slips. That prior to February 1958, a Morse telegraph circuit known as Circuit No. 99 was maintained on the Tucson Division and was used by the teleg7aphers for handling business or messages of this nature until the telephone ryas substituted in lieu of Morse Circuit No. 99 in early 1958.
Carrier's position is that the telephone conmrsations subject of this claim, without the intervention of a telegrapher, is consistent with a long established practice on the property - a practice which antendates the Teleg-
raphers' Current Agreement acrd their general Scope Rule by many years; that the said conversations were not "communications of record" as alleged by the employer.
Once again we must refer to Special Board of Adjustemut 563 which involved these same panties and agreement which extensively reviewed prior awards of this Board involving these parties and in its Award 12 arrived at the conclusion that three different tests may be applied in determining rights of telegraphers to telephone communications on this property.
The telephone conversation related directly to payroll information which is certainly net a communication of record nor does it directly affect the control or movement of trains. The message transmitted by the clerk was informational in aoatent only.
It rccrrxx like time memorial that the Board has consistently held that when. the employes rely upon tradition, custom and practice, they must show by a preponderance of evidence, not merely that telegraphers customarily perform the type of work, but that they handle the messages to the exclusion of all otri,exs.
Petitioner has failed to sustain ti:at burden of proof, wherein the type o£ messages in the ease at bar, were handled by telegraphers to the exclusion of all others or by history. custom and past practice was r,:served or assigned to them exclusively thxougAzoui; the system.
FINDINGS: The Third Div:: ion of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, anal upon the whole record and all the evidence, fiends and holds:
That this Division of the =~djvtament Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and