(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, ( Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Soo Line Railroad Companyy

(1) The Carrier violated the effective Agreement, particularly Rule 1 and Memorandum of Agreement of November 28, 1945, when train crew employes not of this Craft and Class southbound out of Stinson Yard were required to OS their trains upon passing Hillcrest to telegraph operators at Stinson Yard.

 (2) Carrier shall compensate the senior idle extra telegrapher for 8 hour pro rata for each date of claim, or if none available, the senior regularly assigned telegrapher rested and available at Stinson Yard for 8 hours at the rate of time and one-half for each date of claim; for dates and times and for specific instances of violations as listed here below:






















    Date Train Time Dispatcher

    2/22 # 418 130 AM WJG .

    2/21 . #r 418 513 AM WJG

    _ 2/20 # 418 625 AM, WJG

    2/19 # 418 525 AM WJG

    2/14 418 518 AM . WJG

    2/13- -4 418 450 AM WJG -

    2/13 ERA 775E 815 AM WJG

    2/13 ERA 742E 840 AM FWP '

    2/12 # 418 615 AM WJG

    2/12 EX&-789 E 855 AM LLH

    2/10 ERA 733E 730 AM GLT

    2/9 ERA 759E 400 AM GLT

    2/8 ERA 782E 955 AM LLH

    2/7 ERA 775E 1145 PM CM

    . 2/6 8 418 925 AM ' FWP

    2/6 EXA 803E 505 PH CJif

    2/6 EXA 786E 840 PM CJM

    2/5 # 418 758 AM LLH

    2/5 ERA 760E 955 AM LLH

    2/5 EXA 767E 235 1.f LLH

    2/4 # 418 600 Ali WJG

    2/4 EXA 760E 800 AM LLH

    2/1 # 418 710 AM WJG

    1/31 C 418 155 M·1 . WJG

    1/31 EXA 740E 855 AM FWP


        1/31 E%A 759E 807 AM FWP -

        1/30 # 418 700 AM WJG


OPINION OF BOARD: Prior to this dispute,' the Carrier maintained an
 automatic device at Solon.Springs, Wisconsin which
 signalled the passing of eastbound trains at that point to the Operator
 at Stinson Yard. The Operator at Stinson Yard would then notify the
 Train Dispatcher, who would record the train's passing at Solon Springs
 on the Train Sheet, The automatic device at Solon Springs, referred to
 by the Carrier's Superintendent in.his letter of July 15, 1976 as
 "an automatic OS device," and referred to in the Carrier's Rebuttal as
 an "ennunciator," became defective. Carrier thereafter instructed
 train crews to contact the Operator at StIason Yard by radio when the
 eastbound trains passed Hil1crest. Hii1crest is some 18 miles south of
                  Award Number 22257 page 3

                  Docket Number CL-22091


Stinson Yard and 11.6 miles from Solon Springs. Upon receipt of this information by the Operator at Stinson Yard, the Operator would then notify the Train Dispatcher who would record the matter on the Train Sheet. No Operators are employed at either Hillcrest or Solon Springs.

 The Organization contends that the radio transmission of the information at Hillcrest by the train crews to the Operator at Stinson Yard is a violation of the Agreement. The Organization contends that this transmission is an "OS" report.

 The Carrier states in its Submission that the provision applicable to this dispute is paragraph 3 of the memorandum of Agreement found on page 68 of the Schedule Agreement which states as follows:

        "When no emergency exists, as above defined, an inquiry by train or enginemen as to the time or location of another train or in connection with their work, will not be considered a violation of this agreement when it does not involve the transmission of train orders, messages of record, reports or "OS" of trains."


It is the Carrier's position that radio conversations between the Telegrapher Operator and the train crews do not rise to the dignity of "OS's" in the record of this instant case. The Carrier cites Third Division Award No. 15740 (Kenan) in support of its position. The Carrier contends that a practice exists supporting the use of train crews. In his letter of April 28, 1976, the Carrier Superintendent stated:

        "...the matter of a train crew giving an OS to an operator is long established and accepted. Specifically, train crews at Gladstone give their OS to the Gladstone operator on a71 departing trains. The same applies to train 911 departing from Soo, train 34 departing from Rhinelander and many others ...."


In its Submission before this Board the Carrier listed eight situations where an Operator receives information on derarting trains.

 In the Carrier's Rebuttal, the Carrier identifies the crux of the dispute to be whether the message from the Train Crew to the Operator constitutes an "OS", For general background
                  Award Number 22257 Page 4

                  Docket Number CL-22091


purposes only see Third Division Award No. 4395 (no referee) and Third Division Award No. 4287 (Carter) for a statement as to what is "OS" work in railroad parlance. Also refer to what is considered "OSing" on the particular property referred to in Third Division Award No. 10978 (Moore).

 The report transmitted by radio by the Train Crew at Hillcrest to the Operator at Stinson Yard was relayed by,the Operator to the Dispatcher and entered on the Train Sheet. The report containing the information of the time of passing Hillcrest originated from the Train Crew and it is this, the Train Crew's information that was entered on sheet "OS", becoming a matter of record and being used to control the movement of trains. In Special Board of Adjustment No. 506 (Ray) Award No. 22 the Referee stated in part:

        "...Carrier argues that ary report made to the dispatcher was by a telegrapher. The violation as we see it was the report given by the train service employee to the telegrapher for relay to the dispatcher. Rule 2(c) says train service employees shall not be permitted to report trains. It does not say except to a telegrapher. If the dispatcher could use a telegrapher to get these reports from a train service employee, it could evade the rule ...."


See also Public Law Board No. 680 Awards No. 5 and No. 7 (Zumas) and Third Division Award No. 17231 (P. C. Dugan). We are compelled to find that the reporting of the train's passing by the Train Crew at Hillcrest to the Operator in Stinson Yard is in violation of Paragraph 3 as set forth above.

 The Carrier's assertion of a practice, the evidence on the property relating only to departing trains,is of no significance to the particular dispute before this Board, which dispute does not concern departure reports.

 We find no justification for eight hours'pay for this type of service. Payment of the claims shall be for a "call" under Rule Rule 16(b); and if more than one report was made during the two-hour period, as on 131, payment for just one call is required.
                      Award Number 22257 Page 5

                    Docket Number CL-22091


        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 Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim sustained per Opinion.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: ~~ (/-~/Z
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of December 1978.