(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes ( (Formerly Transportation-Communication Employees Union) PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Transportation-Com
 munication Employees Union on the New York Central System
 (PLE), that:

 1. On November 11, 1966, the Carrier violated and continues to violate the Transportation-Commun Run, Pennsylvania when it required and permits train service employees, not covered by Telegraphers' Agreement to perform the telephone communication work in connection with reporting (OSing) trains, a service customarily performed by the operator on duty at this station.

 Carrier shall be required, because of this violation, to compensate the operator on duty at Connellsville, Pennsylvania, during the hours of 12 midnight and 8:00 a. each violation going back for a period of 60 days or from September 16, 1966, for a retroactive claim for each violation as shall be determined by a joint check of appropriate records to show trains arriving at Dickerson Run at 12:01 a.m. or later when there was no operator on duty at Dickerson Run.

 As listed in your letter of January 23, 1967, this request is in behalf of 63 named claimants covering specified dates and times commencing September 16, 1966, and c reporting off and/or asking permission to proceed east.

 OPINION OF BOARD: In this dispute the Employes allege violation of their agree
 ment with the Carrier, including a Memorandum of Agreement
 dated December 13, 1954, occurs when train crews of trains arriving at and de
 parting from Dickerson Run communicate with a telegrapher at "BV" McKeesport,
 giving and receiving reports, required by the Carrier, concerning such arrivals
 and departures.

 Although both parties attempt to relate the facts of this dispute to those of other cases where they are or have been involved, we are convinced that there are distinguishing differences.

 A thorough and careful study of the record shows that the Memorandum of Agreement dated December 13, 1954, cannot properly be related to the actions here complained of because, being a special agreement provision, it must be


restricted narrowly to the subjects specifically referred to, none of which involve the reportin
Nor do the Employes establish by any evidence of probative value that any other agreement provision prohibits the specific use of the telephone as revealed by the record.

 Accordingly, the claim must be denied. Obviously, because of the unique nature of this controversy this decision is confined to the facts of this case and may not properly be used as a precedent where the facts may be different.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon i:he whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employes involved in thi. dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the itailway 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 not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: -
 ' Executive Secretary

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