. (Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, PARTIES TO DISPUTE.







Claim of H. H. Geske, Agent and Operator, Trout Lake, Michigan for 2 hours pro-rata on February 3, 197'(, for violation of Telegraphers' Rule 20, when Agent and Operator Geske was required to relay via Bell Telephone Train Order No. 329 to the Conductor of Work Extra 731 at Engadine.



Claim of R. H. Finstad, Agent and Operator, Gordon, Wisconsin, for 2 hours pro-rata on February 6, 1978, for violation of Telegraphers' Rule 20, when Agent and Operator Finstad was required to relay via Bell Telephone Train Order No. 111 to the Conductor of Extra DMIR 156 West at Chittamo.

OPINION OF BOARD: Claims Nose 1 and 2 arose as a result of the Carrier
requiring operators to verbally relay by telephone train
orders, which they had previously copied, to train crews at locations where
an operator working under the Agreement was not on duty in situations that
did not involve emergencies. The Organization argues that such acts are in
violation of Rule 20 of the parties' Agreement mad the Joint Six Organization
Train.Order Agreement of November 28, 1945. Rule 20 of the parties' Agree
ment provides:










The Joint Train Order Agreement of November 28, 1945 provides;







            (3) 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.


            (4) It shall not be considered as a violation of this agreement for train or enginemen to obtain necessary clearance at an automatic interlocker s failure, or for train or enginemen on branch line trains to obtain check at trains direct from the dispatcher, at junction points where a telegrapher is not non employed, but only on such trains as are due to arrive at such junction point after branch line train has passed the last telegraph or telephone office before arrival at junction."


It is not disputed in the record that the Conductor of Work bra 731 copied Train Order No. 329 at Engadine on February 3, 1977 (Claim No. 1). It is not disputed in the record that the Conductor of Extra DMIR 56 West copied Train Order No. 111 at Ciittamo on February 6, 1978 (Claim No. 2). These acts seem to be in direct conflict with that part of paragraph (1) of the Joint Train Order Agreement of November 28, 1945 stating:

            " . . . . that train and engine service

            employees will neither be required -

            nor veimitted to c train orders gov

            erning the movement of trains other than

            in emergencies as herein defined."

            (underscoring added)


Inasmuch as it is not alleged that an emergency existed (paragraph (2) of the Joint Train Order Agreement) and the exceptions of paragraphs (3) and (4) of the Joint Train Order Agreement are not argued., it would seem that the call provided in Rule 20 (b) supra, would be appropriate.

The Carrier cited an award issued by Referee Blackwell, Award No. 32, Case No. 22, PLB No. 1682. Referee Blackwell denied a call to an operator who claimed that an operating rule was violated when a conductor was permitted to copy a train order,, which was radioed rather than written and hand-delivered
                    Award Number 23074 page 4

                    Docket Number CL-22793


by the operator. In denying the call, Blackwell emphasized the fact that the claimant performed all of the work that was required to be performed by an operator in the relaying of a train order under the applicable rule. The award cited by Carrier is distinguished, however, in that the rule concerning the relaying of a
        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 Enployes 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.


                                NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSMENT BOARD

                                By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: ~~
Executive Secretary

Dated at Chicago. Illinois, this 21st day of November 1980.

                                                _ ' . _J \

                                            w,


                                                          t