NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUS7MENT BOARD
 ' Award Number 23530
 THIRD DIVISION Docket Number TD-22944

(American Train Dispatchers Association PARTIES 'i`0 DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: (a) The Atchison., Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company,
currently effective agreement between the parties to this dispute, partic
 ularly Article I, Section 1; Article II, Sections 7, 10a, 10c, 32 and 13;
 Article IV, Sections 2 and 4; Article X Section 8 and Article XI Section 1,
 having removed part of the Fourth District between Glendale and Mobest,
 Arizona Albuquerque Division, from the train order method of operation dir
 ected by Train Dispatchers at Window, Arizona, covered by the agreement,
 to Yard Limits method of operation as per rule 93, Rules Operating Depart
 ment 1966, designating party or parties unknown, not covered by the Agree
 ment, the responsibility for issuing instructions pertaining to the movement
 of trains between these two points. This constitutes a transfer of work
 from the train dispatchers at Winslow, Arizona to party or parties unknown
 at/or near Glendale*

 (b) The Carrier shall now compensate three (3) train dispatchers daily, eight (8) hours each at pro-rata rate, for trick train dispatchers assigned from:



OPINION OF BOARD: In April 1973, Carrier issued the following orders:

                  Mobest and Glendale is discontinued. Rule


                  93 applies."

                    Award Number 23530 Page 2

                    Docket Number TD-22944


Carrier further ordered that:

            "At Glendale, Arizona, Eastward trains will head in unless Glendale operator gives permission to hold Main Line."


This change in operating procedure eliminated about six miles of track from train order operation.

 The organization claims that this change violates the Agreement. It argues that it constitutes a material change in the territory controlled by the dispatcher at Winslow. Article II of the schedule Agreement requires that all dispatcher assignments affected by this order must be abolished, reestablished, and rebid.

 It also argues that the work of controlling trains between Mobest and Glendale has been turned over to someone not covered by the Agreement and that this is a violation of the Agreement.

 The organization finally argues that Carrier's contention that it only extended the yard limits in this instance is false. The yard limits have always extended from Phoenix to Beardsly. That is considerably beyond Glendale. Thus, Carrier's
The Organization is basically arguing that Carrier, by changing from a train order system to a Rule 93 operation between Mobest and Glendale, is "whittling away" at the work traditionally done by dispatchers and assigning that work to nondispatchers. This diminution of the work is a contract violation. The Organiz be paid eight hours each from May 12, 1973, to the settlement of this claim.

 Carrier presents numerous arguments in support of its position. It argues that it is not required to obtain the Organization's approval when it extends yard limits. It has extended the yard limits in numerous other locations and no grievance was filed. It has not abolished any dispatchers' positions. No dispatchers have lost wages. The work in question has been eliminated, not transferred to others. The Organization has not identified which of its members have been damaged by Carrier's actions or which employes have been assigned the work formerly done by the claimants.

 Carrier states that road switchers have always operated under Rule 93 between Mobest and Glendale.
                    Award Number 23530 Page 3

                    Docket Number 't9)-22')44


After a thorough review and discussion of the record of this case, this Board must conclude that the Organization has not presented a case sufficiently persuasive to justify its position. The Organization has made certain allegations, but they have not been supported by fact or testimony. The Organization has failed to demonstrate how Carrier's action of changing from a train order operation to a Rule 93 operation between Mobest and Glendale has violated the Agreement. At one point in its presentation, the Organization argued that removing the section between Mobest and Glendale from the control of the dispatcher was a "material change" and that, as such, Article II became operative. This Board is not persuaded that what has taken place here is a material change, as contemplated by Article II. Dispatchers at Winslow control train movement on over 530 miles of track. The area affected by Carrier's action is about six miles. The Organization has failed to demonstrate how excluding this small percentage of the total track can be considered as material and a chan,~;:~ sufficiently significant to warrant abolishing jobs and rebidding them.

 The Organization has also failed to identify the claimants in this case or the employes who are doing the disputed work. Absent such specificity, it is impossible for the Board to award monetary damages, as claimed by the Organization, if it found that a violation existed.

 It is the opinion of this Board that the Organization did not carry its burden of proof in this case. The Organization has fallen short of proving that Carrier's action is, in fact, a contract violation.

        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 23530 Page 4

                    Docket Number TD-22944


        That the Agreement has not been violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division

ATPF.ST: 42 Idl. avtjj~e -0
Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 26th day of February 1982.

 y Cifice~
                TO ~;_:~2I) ::35:c (DI-:-__ TD-_z94:.)

                2e feree is


      The Award correctly s+,ates, on rave 2,


      "It fthe organizati0-,i7 argues that the werk of controllink trains between Kobest and Glendale to someone pct covered by the A;reement and that this is a violation of the Ar;,reamen+.."


The Carrier did not, at any time, dispute the Orcanizat-ion's asscrticn. :1n uac a i enged assertion. rust be de- cd correct.

      The Carrier -lid raise a defense, ho'.:ever, stating that .it extended

n li ts ° ;~ e c l '?ol 'he n.. 7 .aa ab
 the yard rai,.s _: o.:. .ob ,,t to G en. _e. : e ' ;:,:LO,- .·e ~ c .e:~o.^.., r . ed
 conclusively th_t the yard li:-..its were rot e.ctende". The Carrier's de
 fence merits ..^.o ce^ci(leration, for it is patently untrue. mone c:ctension
 of yard li.:it:3, ev,:)n had it been t.rue, had no effect on the caan^e of
 the train dispatchers' territcri-=i assif;nment, since they directed the
 movement of trains both within and -Y.=.`hgut+, yard Iirlits~ a,; sho'm in the
 record,

 Is for Carriers arr^zrents that the tr:in :;isp_~Lcncrsl score rule is a general scope rule and that y ari-_asters have control a.^.d ;;u1, isi' c tion of yards, as the anpioyees took pairs to point Gut, these are new argurents never raised during handLng on the prc&perty and should have received no concideration by this Board.

 The ii.·srd, on page 3, sta+.es, "The Organization has also failed to iri=entify the claimants in this case or the employ es :::lo are doing the disputed work . . . .1 t First, the Carrier itself mudC no allegation th:.t l± could nit l~Cntlfy the indlvld,1?.1 ClL-_.·--ants. in a continuing clai_!, it .ro,lld be strane irdecd if t.^.e claimants were ider±i!'-ed ::,y· thei: C'::ristian names. T!:irj C'_'.zs_on :,:;:.rd's 203:1 '122cC0 _.^.i :_3062 ., ,

 Second, the record sh:rors th=.t both :mplo,rees ::nd Carrier i~c;tified em7lcye,~s to r:hoa the work ..as tr::rsfcrred. In the record, -tlbaquerque

        .,, 61',.t u~_e- al e~ ."r_.i.G'.^-y _^f.' a.^ t_^.- ..il L - ~. _. l:.^. .~5

      nl lale,rp._ .a __ !'.o ."Old

Lybo·· C Cisso...t t ,:. ..,1 2'7 ;'jJ , '0 r.~- ^ji-.)G - ~:)r ~. j ., c.7
      r..~-r' w. _ 94_;i _ _ _


-And the Carrier stated i.^. its Ex ~::.^te Submission:

      :I. o . v ard·T_a~terS ^O~ ~~J;~ h.Ve jil.^=saietion ov-r all trains

      ·:dt,::in :'2rds ?r:., _ ",..-.~ot :~·s c stor:.-rii- -nI tr-di,`_o-:;_ll;; excr cise jurisdiction over trains and en i nes within yard 1 ir:its."


Thus proving that it expects its yardnasters to exercise jurisdiction in the area in question.

      This is one more example of the majority1a propensity to accept

.:hat the carriers say as unquestionabJ.y true; the crl-,.ni*zation Sa,S
 is uns,,:; ported assertion.
 .'. J. Ir-,rn
 Labor 1:enher

 P
 i n

                  v

                  v


      C~/pogo CF ~,e _ r,;..~~


2