(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employs PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company

(1) Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when on June 5, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, 1973, it required and permitted train service employees not covered thereby, to request and receive permission to cross their train over the main tracks and to report their train clear of the main track thereby performing work of blocking trains and exchanging other information relating to the movement of trains at Lodi, Ohio, to the train dispatcher over the telephone via the operator at GN Tower, Greenwich, Ohio, and

 (2) Carrier shall, as a result, compensate C. R. Taddeo, incumbent Agent-Operator at Nova-Lodi, Ohio, three (3) hours pay at pro rata rate for each date of June 5, 6, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, 1973.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was assigned as Agent-Operator in a dual capacity:
 he performed service at Nova, Ohio 8:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M.
 and at Lodi, Ohio from 2:30 P.M. until 4:00 P.M. Mondays through Friday (rest
 days Saturdays and Sundays). Carrier operated a train known as the Willard
 Wooster Local over the main line to Lodi and then over a branch line to Wooster,
 returning daily reversing the route. On the trip to Wooster the Conductor reported
 his train clear of the Eastbound Main Track at Lodi; on the return trip he had
 to secure permission to come off the branch at Lodi, cross over the Eastbound
 Main Track and move westward to Willard. In both cases the Conductor used a tele
 phone adjacent to the Wooster Branch .witch at Lodi. If Claimant (the Nova-Lodi
 Agent) was at Lodi, the Conductor contacted him and he in turn contacted the
 Dispatcher at Akron for appropriate instructions to be given to the Conductor.
 In the event that Claimant was not at Lodi at the time that the Conductor needed
 to contact the Dispatcher, the Conductor telephoned the Operator at GN Tower
 (about twelve miles east of Nova? who in turn contacted the Dispatcher at Akron
 and relayed instructions to the Conductor. The Claims herein are for those in
 stances in which the Conductor telephoned the Operator at GN Tower rather than
 Claimant, who was not available.

 Petitioner relies on the Scope Rule as well as Rules 4(b-2) and 65 of the applicable Agreement in support o£ its position. The Scope Rule is cited primarily because "Operators", "Block Operators" and "Telephone Operators" are listed therein and it is argued that the work in connection with those classifications cannot be arb
Rule 4(b-2) and the Understanding pertaining to that Rule provide:
















Petitioner contends that this Rule was violated in that the work at issue was a part of Claimant's regular assignment and should not have been performed by a train service employe. Further, this rule specifies how work that is assigned to several positions will be assigned when it cannot be performed within regular assigned hours.









The Organization contends that the term "blocking trains" means the same thing under Rule 65 as it did under the previous Agreement in Article 35. In this case, it is urged that the blocking of trains was performed by the use of telephone and the work in question is confined to employee covered by the Agreement; when such emplo the Agreement. A*number of examples of prior disputes and settlements as well as Awards of this Board have been cited.

 Carrier argues that Article 35 of the predecessor Agreement preserved the use of the telephone to covered employes, which is quite different from the provisions of Rule 65, and Petitioner, by this Claim is attempting to extend the Agreement to restore the old proviso. Carrier states that the action of the Conductor in contacting and to report his train in the clear did not constitute a "train order" or "blocking of trains": erg used the telephone to contact an Operator at GN Tower, based on Award No. 244 of Special Board of Adjustment 355 which was rendered in 1964. These payments were discontinued on June 4, 1973 upon the effective date of the current Agreement, when Article 35 was superceded by Rule 65. Article 35 prrntided:







Carrier argues that Rule 4(b-2) does not support the Claim in that it does not preclude Carrier from assigning clerical work to more than one employe; in fact the provisions of Section 2(a) of the Understanding (supra) contemplate the assignment of work to more than one position. Carrier avers that the bulk of the communications between the Conductor at Lodi and the Dispatcher at Akron had been handled through the Operators of GN Tower since November 1, 1965. A principal point is made that the current (consolidated Clerk-Telegrapher) Agreement contains no 'rul fact, it is urged that there was no requirement in the current Agreement that the Conductor communicate with the Dispatcher through any Operator.

 Rule 65 is restricted to "...copying train orders, clearance forms or blocking trains ...." which is significantly different from the provisions of Article 35 of the predecessor Agreement which stressed the operation of the telephone for "·..the purpose of blocking trains, handling train orders or messages ....". It is clear that practice and precedent involving Article 35 are not controlling insofar as Rule 65 is concerned.

 The principal question to be resolved in this dispute is whether or not the actions of the Conductor in phoning the Operator at GN Tower for permission to come off the the trip to report his train clear of the main track constituted "blocking of trains" or "copying train orders". It is clear that there~was no copying of train orders involved in the incidents. In Award 12768, we outlined the functions which must be pres











In the instant dispute the Conductor had nothing to do with authorizing the movement of other tr 12768 the most essential function involved in the blocking of trains is -the decision that the train may move into the block; the Conductor herein had nothing to do with this decision. In many previous cases we have held that the use of the telephone by train service employes to report themselves clear or to obtain permission to use certain tracks does not constitute the copying of train orders (see Awards 15003, 11161, and 14028 for example); we reaffirm that position.

 After careful examination of the facts, the arguments presented and the many cases cited, we can find no support for the position that the Agreement was violated. Based denied.



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






                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: 49'R/4 ~~0_000 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of May 1976.