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

 STATEMENT OE' CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Transportation
 Communication Division, BRAC, on the Norfolk and Western
 ?ailrcad (Lake Region), GL-7318, that:

 1. Carrier is violating the Agreement between the parties by requiring and permitting trainmen a for the purpose of blocking trains, handling (sending and receiving) train orders and messages at Gambrinus Yard, Ohio.

 2. Carrier shall, as a result, compensate the first out extra telegrapher, or the senior regular telegrapher observing rest day if no extra telegrapher idle, a three-hour call for each occurrence in accordance with ?aragraph (D) of Memorandum agreement effective March 1, 1962, for so long as violations continue, except in no case will less than eight hours' pay be allowed for any date.

 CARRIER DOCKET: TC-CAN-71-5
 COMM. DOCKET: C-71-11

 OPINION OF BOARD: The Canton Ohio Terminal of Carrier includes within its
 limits the Canton Yard and the Gambrinus Yard. Prior
 to August 11, 1971 Carrier had maintained three seven day telegrapher posi
 tions at its Canton Yard who's responsibilities included the use of the tele
 phone for relaying instructions and messages concerning train movements
 throughout the Canton Terminal. Effective August 11, 1971 Carrier abolished
 the second, third and relief Operator positions at Canton Yard. Petitioner
 alleges that thereafter the telephone responsibilities referred to above
 were carried out by Trainmen, Yardmasters and Clerical employes at the Gam
 brinus Yard, giving rise to this dispute.

 Petitioner relies on the Scope Rule, which is general, and the specific terms of Rule 26:






where information was relayed through yardmesters, trainmen and clerks.
 Carrier, in response, stated that all the information alluded to, which had
 previously been handled through the Operator at the Carton Yard was sub
 sequent to August 11, 1971, handled through the Operators at "BX" or "D"
 office at Brewster. While not denying this factual assertion, the Organiza
 tion claims that the language of the last sentence of Rule 26 supports the
 claim in that it did not intend "...to except the use of the telephone at
 the ends of passing sidings or spur tracks to communicate with any operator,
 rather than with the ~oDerato_r at the station where the spur track or passing
 siding was located. .redo not agree with this reasoning. In our view the
 sentence may not be construed so narrowly and may be freely interpreted to
 mean operator - regardless of location.

 The record in this case clearly demonstrates that the work in question was removed from the purvie-. given to other operators to perz'_ra; such a change in operations is not contrary to the Rules. No b be denied.



That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meeaing 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








ATTEST:_ `C·`(/, /~
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of August 1974.