(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Maine Central Railroad Company ( Portland Terminal Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-7855)

1. Carrier violated Article 21, Paragraph (a) when it allowed an employe not coming within the Scope of the January 1, 1951 Agreement to handle two (2) train orders on the Mountain Division at Hiram, Maine on March 3, 1974, at 8:00 P.M.

 2. Carrier shall be required to compensate Mr. W. C. Carkin, a two (2) hour call at punitive rate in accordance with Article 21, Paragraph (b) and Article 7.

 3. Carrier shall also allow the mileage and deadhead time he would have received had he been called.

 OPINION OF BOARD: As a consequence of a derailment near Hiram, Maine on
 March 2, 1974, two work trains were dispatched to the
 scene of the wreck to clear the tracks. When this was accomplished that
 night the crews were ready to return to their headquarters. It was deter
 mined that they lacked train orders for their departure. Trainmaster
 Bickford called the Train Dispatcher who then issued a train order for each
 work train. Trainmaster Bickford then copied the order and delivered one
 to each train. This claim arises because Claimant Carkin is a regularly
 assigned Agent located at South Windham, Maine with assigned hours of 7:00
 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. with Saturday and Sunday as rest days. It is Claimant 'a
 contention that Hiram, Maine is under the jurisdiction of his work location,
 being approximately twenty-six miles from South Windham. Carrier denies
 this and maintains there was no violation of Article 21 (b) of the applic
 able agreement. On this basis the claim was progressed on the property
 until submission to this Board.

 Article 21 deals with "Handling Train Orders" and subsections (a) and (b) are quoted here:





        not on duty, the employe, if available or can be promptly located, will be called to perform such duties and paid under the provisions of Article 7; if available and not called, the employe will be compensated as if he had been called."


There is no claim that the case presents a question of emergency insofar as the handling of the train orders involved work trains returning from a derailment. The Claimant maintains he was available for call at the time involved and, in fact, he had been alerted to receive such call; but no further facts are stated and Carrier does not contest this.

 Both parties make reference to Award 20074 (Hays) of this Division which involved the same Claimant, Carrier, work and rules. In that award this Board denied the claim. It is the contention of the Claimant here that in that award was not knowledgeable in the history of train orders. The Carrier, for its part, relies upon that award and insists it should be followed in accordance with the rules of this differences between the two cases are more accidental than substantial. There an Engineer Department Supervisor delivered the train orders to a location 60 or 65 miles from South Windham. Claimant Carkins there maintained the train location at jurisdiction. There was no emergency in that case. Relying upon an earlier award of Referee Parker, Award 6863 which interpreted Article 21 (b) as modifying subsection (a) to the effect that "if train orders are handled at stations where no member of the craft is employed they may be handled by other employes..."

 The second ground for the award is the long-standing practice by Carrier in handling "in care of" train orders by delivering such orders to the point where they were to be placed in effect,whes there was no telegrapher employed9by an employe other than a Telegrapher.

 The award concludes with recognition of the long history of conflicting awards of the Third Division as "past practices" indicating it was of the opinion the Employes were aware of such practice and never properly challenged it.

 We have reviewed the awards cited by both the Carrier and the Employes here and we conclude that Award 20074 is controlling and this claim must be denied.
                Award Number 21397 Page 3

                Docket Number CL-21252


        FINDINGS: 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 mead 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

        The contract was not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim is denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST:~L Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of -January 1977.