(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, (Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes ((Formerly Transportation-Communication Employees Union) PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Illinois Central Railroad Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Transportation
 Communication Employees Union on the Illinois Central
 Railroad, that:

 1. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when it required or permitted employees not co information of record governing the movement of trains by means of radiotelephone.

 2. Carrier shall compensate employees listed below who hold positions at Duquoin, Illinois, a call f








OPINION OF BOARD: Prior awards, involving these parties, have resolved issues
 similar to those of the instant case. Those awards make
 it clear that the Agreement is not violated when employes other than telegraphers
 use the telephone, unless such use involves a communication relating directly
 to the movement of trains or otherwise can be correctly described as a communi
 cation of record.

 It is observed that the "Note" to Rule 4C removes an inquiry about the time of another train from the restrictions of this rule, unless such inquiry is used in connection with train movement.

 The present claim involves fifteen instances where train crews conversed by telephone with various e about a variety of subjects. Some of these conversations concerned the picking up or setting out of cars. As was held in recent Award 19285, such use of


the telephone is not reserved exclusively to telegraphers. Some of the conversations were inquir such inquiries are proscribed by Rule 4C only if they are used in connection with train movements. Under such a condition, the burden of establishing the use to which the inquiry is put rests with the employes. A careful study of the record convinces us that this burden has not been met, and consequently those claims involving such inquiries must be denied for lack of proof.

 Some of the conversations did, in our opinion, relate directly to the movement of trains and therefore amounted to violation of the agreement.

 In conformity with the above, without repeating the details of each instance, and without discussion of the discrepancies between certain of the facts and the claim as presented to the Board, it is our decision that Claimants be awarded one call
        Claimant Ellermeyer, October 27 and November 16, 1966

              (Employes' items (1) and (10), their statement of facts).


        Claimant Herman, November 13, 1966 (Employes' item (6)).


        Claimant Lipton, November 14, 1966 (Employes' item (9)).


        In all other respects the claims will be denied.


        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 Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

 That the Agreement was violated to the extent indicated in the Opinion.

                    A W A R D


        Claims sustained to the extent indicated in the Opinion and Findings.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, illiuois, this. 28th day of July 1972.