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

1. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when on the dates of December 6, 11, 12, 1973 and January 15, 1974, it caused and permitted train service employes performing flagging duties, employes not covered by the Agreement, to use the telephone at Swanton, Maryland for the purpose of securing location of train information for the protection of workmen, equipment and material of the American Bridge Company.

 2. Carrier shall, as a result, compensate Clerk-operators P. H. Filsinger, H. C. Bittinger, S. E. Butt, Jr., and S. E. Butt, Jr., eight (8) hours' pay for the dates of December 6, 11, 12, 1973 and January 15, 1974 respectively.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Employes' initial claim alleges that, "The Carrier
 by instructing or permitting a Train Service employe
 to perform work exclusively assigned to the Clerical Craft did violate
 Rule 66 and other rules of the Clerks' Agreement." In Petitioner's
 Submission to this Board, Rule 1 (Scope Rule) was specifically mentioned
 as supporting the claim of agreement violation, but Rule 1 is a general
 description of the employes covered by the agreement and, unless the
 specific work function in dispute is covered by Rule 66, the claim must be
 denied.



                    Docket Number CL-21821


          "This interpretation is not intended to change existing practice of Maintenance of Way men obtaining such information by telephone when it is necessary to open the track for maintenance, repairs, etc."


On four occasions between December 6, 1973 and January 15, 1974, Trainmen who were performing flagging duties telephoned the Clerk-Operators, claimants herein. Carrier contends the calls were for the sole purpose of obtaining permission from the Dispatcher for American Bridge Company to move equipment on trucks along Carrier's right-of-way to its construction site several miles away from Carrier's property.

 Employes' initial claim states that American Bridge Company "required flag protection for their employes and equipment." It further states that the call was made to secure information concerning the movement of trains. Carrier denies that the contractor required flag protection or train movement information.

 There is no evidence is the record before this Board in support of the claimant's allegation that the contractor required information regarding the location of trains for the protection of his workmen or equipment. Any such information was required only by the Carrier, which cannot reasonably be considered to be a "contractor L) or others engaged in construction work."

 Nor is there any evidence that the contractor initiated a request for flag protection, as alleged in Petitioner's submission.

 The Board concludes that the language of Rule 66 does not cover calls of the type made in this case.

        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 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
                    Award Number 21786 Page 3

                    Docket Number CL-21821


        The Agreement was not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of November 1977.