(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, (Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes ((Formerly Transportation-Communication Division, BRAC) PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Western Maryland Railway Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Transportation-
 Communication Division, BR.AC, on the Western Maryland Railway Company, T-C 5812, that:

 1. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when on December 5 and 13, 1969, and subsequent dates it required or permitted other employees to handle, copy train orders, or other messages of record governing the movement of trains at Laurel Bank and Elkins when no emergency existed.

 2. Carrier shall, as a result, compensate the minimum basic day to the head out Extra man on the extra list for each date of occurrence.

 CARRIER DOCKET: W-45

 OPINION OF BOARD: Prior to November 16, 1969 all movements of trains over
 Carrier's G. C. and E. Durbin and B=Lington Subdivisions were authorized by train orders handled by the operators, members of the T-C Division BRAC, at Laurel Bank and Elkins. On November 16, 1969 as a result of Carrier's Gen=ral Orders it was stipulated that train movements on these sub-divisions would be made by oral permission received directly by the train crew from the Train Dispatcher. With this change the Carrier later abolished the last remaining telegrapher position at Laurel Bank. However, on the claim dates Operators were employed at both Elkins and Laurel Bank.

 The claim arose when Carrier required train crews to use the telephone to receive block authoriz and Elkins, W. Va. from the train dispatcher at Cumberland, Md. The Organization maintains that when train orders it violated both the Scope Rule and the Agreement of February 19, 1957. The Organization argues that the instructions given to a crew to proceed to a block are, in fact, train orders, and since such orders must be copied and reduced to writing account Rule 115 of Carrier's Book of Operating Rules said handling of these train orders should have been performed by Op=erators.
                    Docket Number TE-19433


Carrier contends that neither the Scope Rule nor the February 19, 1957 Agreement were violated. The Scope Rule, says Carrier, is general in nature and the Organization has failed to prove through past practice, traditions, and custom that the work in question has been performed by Telegraphers to the exclusion 1957 Agreement has been violated, the Organization rtnist prove that the communication was a train o or Train Dispatcher. Carrier argues that none of these conditions precedent were met. Rather the Dispatcher gave the train crews oral authority to operate on a secondary track in full compliance with its Book of Operating Rules.

 This Board is o° the opinion that the Organization has failed to prove a violation of the applicable Scope Rule. Awards No. 7400, 7401 and 7402, involving the same parties herein (Order of Railroad Telegraphers and Carrier herein) make it obvious that Telegraphers do not possess exclusive right to co7amnicate train orders via the telephone. Those Awards held it did not violate the Organization's rights for train crews to receive and copy train orders from a Dispatcher by utilizinl- a telephone. Nor do we feel the record proves a grant of exclusivity based on past practice, custom, and tradition. The record is lacking in evidence to that effect.

 Nor do we find that the February 19, 1957 Agreement was violated. Award No. 1 of Public Law Board No. 453, involving the identical parties herein, held that said Agreement confined the jurisdiction of the Organization to ressages of record that governed the movaments of trains which were copied. Carrier argued that the oral instructions given to the train crews in question were not messages of recorc. and were nor required to be copied by Conductors and Engineccrs and were not, in fact, copied by persons other than Telegraphers. We find that the Organization has failed to establish by probative evidence that the oral train orders were copied by persons other than Telegraphers. The record is devoid of any such evidence which would tend to prove this necessary prerequisite, and without such evidence, we are left with no alternative other than to den
        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon tha 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 meanirg of th= Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
                  Award Number 19602 Page 3

                  Docket Number TE-19433


That this Division of the Adjustment Boa-d ha-3 jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

      That the Agreement was not violated.


                    A W A R D


      Claim denied.


                      NATIONAL RAILROND ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                      By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
      Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of February 1973.