BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND
STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS,
EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES
(Formerly The Order of Railroad Telegraphers)
THE NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN AND HARTFORD
RAILROAD COMPANY
1. Carrier violated the Telegraphers' Agreement (Article 13) and the Memorandum of Agreement of November 8, 1960, when on July 1 and July 2, 1963, it required or permitted employes not resered under nor covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement to perform service reserved exclusively and traditionally to employes under the Agreement.
2. Carrier shall now compensate for eight (8) hours at the prevailing pro rata, straight time) rate o£ the position of operator Signal Station 185 ($2.6b68 per hour), each of the following qualified idle extra or ragularlyy assigmed employes available under applicable rules:
Copy of the Agreement between the parties is on file with your Board and is, by reference, made a part of this submission.
OPINION OF BOARD: On Sunday, June 30, 1963, a fire occurred at Signal Station 185 in Boston, bringing about damage to the electrical equipment and circuits so that it became necessary to move trains by manual release of lock control for each train movement. It was necessary in addition to "flag" trains by the tower, or, in other words, to give each train a hand flag signal by yellow flags in accordance with the rules.
Trainmen who are not subject to the terms of the Telegraphers' Agreement were used to give the flag signals and the Organization contends that the use of trainmen to perform this work was improper and that the named spare employes in the Statement of Claim, who are under the Telegraphers' Agreement should have been called to perform the work.
The initial claim of Local Chairman Lambent contended also that trainmen delivered clearance cards to trains operating through the interlocking plant. Superintendent Gregg replied to the effect that while trainmen were assigned to handle the yellow flag at no time could a trainman take over the functions of the employes represented by the telegraphers, such as Clearance forms or delivering them to trains.
The clearance card issue was argued by the Organization on the property through the letters of the District Chairman, Carrier was put on notice of this question at the earliest stage, and it is raised again in Employes' Ex Parts Submission. We, therefore, do not concur in the contentions of Carrier that the case before the Board must stand or fall on whether the use of the yellow flag by Trainmen constitutes a violation of the agreement and that the case cannot be decided upon the argument that Trainmen delivered clearance forms.
The record in this case does not persuade the Board that the Carrier violated its agreement with the O.R.T. when it permitted trainmen to give hand signals to train crews moving through inoperative interlocking signals because there was no clear showing in the development of this case that the flagging work belongs exclusively to the telegraphers under the emergent circumstances of this particlax care. On the other hand, we feel the Organization proved that Trainmen were used to deliver clearance cards and, since Carrier indicated that the functioxu of delivering clearance cards was a function of the employes represented by the Telegraphers' Agreement, we find there to be a violation of the agreement.
Claimants axe therefore awarded sixteen hours pay at the straight time rate of the position of operator, to be divided among them on a pro rata basis.