(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship ( Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and ( Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Missouri Pacific Railroad Company









OPINION OF BOARD: Telegraphers in Carrier's "CF" Relay Telegraph Office
 take information for slow orders and/or aporoach
 orders, either by telegraph or telephone from various Carrier employes,
 and such information is placed on a form and relayed to the concerned
 Train Dispatcher, to issue proper train orders affecting movements of
 trains. The Carrier abolished the telegrapher positions of Late Night
 Chief and Chief Relief; and advised its Maintenance of Way Foreman to
 telephone all information for slow orders and approach orders direct to
 the proper Train Dispatcher when the Day Wire Chief in the Relay Tele
 graph office was off duty. On the claim dates, the Carrier's Maintenance
 of :day Foreman did telephone information to the proper Train Dispatchers
 when Claimant was off duty. The Organization contends that the acts of
 the Train Dispatchers receiving the information were in fact the receipt
 of "slow order messages," which the Organization alleges are "communica
 ticn of record" received in lieu of the Day Wire Chief; and are thus
 violations of Scope Rule 1 of the Agreement of the Parties. ?'his Board
 disagrees.

 Contrary to the arguments of the Organization, the issue involved in this case was squarely dealt wi No. 305, Docket :do. 3, decided on the same property. In Award No. 8 the Board held in part:


        " , 41e are convinced that the information transmitted by use of the telephone from Extra Gang Foreman Lynch to the telegrapher at Italy does not fall within the class of messages defined by the Hoard as communications of record, but was merely information which the dispatcher needed in order to prepare and issue necessary slow orders and that there was no need or requirement for such information being made a matter of record."


It is clear that Award No. 8 stands for the proposition that the transmittal of the type of information a Maintenance of Way possess for the ultimate use by a Train Dispatcher in order to prepare a necessary slow order, is not a communication of record and thus does not violate the Scope rule in question. See also the decision of Public Law Hoard No. 193, Award No. 7 (Referee Zumas) which supports this conclusion. Further, see Award No. 9 of Public Law Hoard No. 273 (NW vs. TCU, Referee Hamilton), involving a dispute that resulted from a Maintenance of Way foreman telephoning the Train Dispatcher to furnish information for issuance of necessary protecting orders. The Hoard held in part:

        "We hold that the actions of the employes other than telegraphers in contacting the train dispatchers with information which subsequently resulted in the issuance, change or annulment of train orders is not a violation of the Scope Rule..."


        We deny the claims.


        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, 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 Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.

                    Award :Timber 20479 page 3

                    Docket Number C:,-20433

                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT HOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
          Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of October 1974.