NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number CL-20326
Irwin M. Lieberman, Referee
(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 OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Tra.nsportation
Communication Division, BRAC, on the Norfolk and Western
Railway (Lake Region), sL-7319, that:
1. Carrier violated and continues to violate the Agreement between
the parties by requiring and permitting clerical employees to use the telephone at Gambrinus, Ohio t
2. Carrier sha11, as a result, compensate the first-out, idle
extra telegrapher, or the senior regular telegrapher observing rest day if
no extra telegrapher is idle, payment in accordance with Paragraph (D) of
Memorandum Agreement of February 23, 1962.
CARRIER DOCKET: TC-CAN-71-4
COMM. DOCKET: C-71-10
OPINION OF BOARD: Effective August 11,
1971,
the Carrier abolished the
second, third and relief Operator positions at its Can
ton Yard. One of the duties of the abolished positions, according to Pe
titioner, was to transmit by telephone to the train dispatcher and the gen
eral yardmaster at Brewster, Ohio the train consists of Puller Crews opera
ting between Gambrinus Yard and Brewster Yard. Petitioner alleges that with
the abolishment of the Ooerator positions the Carrier transferred the work
of using the telephone to handle the train consists involving the Pullers
to clerical employes at the Gambrinus Yard. The Organization relies on the
Scope Rule and principally Rule 26 to support its contentions:
"RULE 26 - HAmm TRAIN ORDER
It is not the disposition of the Railroad to displace
employes covered by this agreement by having trainmen
or other employes operate the telephone for the purpose of
blocking trains, handling train orders or messages. This
does not apply to train crews using the telephone at the
ends of passing sidings or spur tracks in communicating
with the operator."
Award Ifumber 20360 Page 2
Docket Yumber CL-20326
In addition to other defenses, Carrier asserts that the Operators at Brewster were used, after A
Furthermore, Carrier contends, that the use of the telephone to transmit
this type of information is not and has not been the exclusive work of
telegraphers.
An examination of the record in this case reveals that it is
singularly devoid of proof or even information to support Petitioner's
position. We have only argimment and citations and one "example" of an
alleged use of the telephone by a clerk on September 8, 1971. There is no
evidence or information with respect to the precise type of work involved,
how it was performed prior to august llth and which employes performed the
work after that date. Furthermore, we find no effective rebuttal of Carrier's argument that the work
Brewster.
Petitioner must establish a prima facie case, supported by evidence submitted on the property, i
Board. In the absence of such
minimal
effort, we have no alternative but
to deny the claim.
FI:mIHGS: 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 not violated.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
~ By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
~.`II
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of August 1974.