Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Kentucky and Indiana Terminal Railroad Company

Carrier violated the agreement, twice on Di:cember 14, 1978, when it required and/or permitted the conductor of Airlint: Train No. 112-124's connection to handle (copy) train order Nos. 111 and 118, via Radio Communication.

 Carrier shall because of this violation, ctmipensate the senior available employe, extra in preference, for a minimum of 3 hours pay for each violation at the rate of pay in effect at the V.I. Tower on this late.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The Organization claims that Carrier violated the Agreement
 when an employe of the Southern Railway handled train orders
 on December 14, 1978. It contends that the train orders should have been
 performed by employes of the Kentucky and Indiana Railroad Company (K.I.T.) The
 Employes ask that the senior available employe be pa:Cd for a minimum of three
 (3) hours pay for each of the two violations on December 14, 1978.

 Carrier argues that it has not violated the Agreement. It contends that the train order was submitted by a southern Dispatcher to a K.I.T. Operator who, in turn, delivered the order to the Southern conductor. In its view, no unauthorized individuals were involved in the transaction.

 We agree with Carrier's contention that the method used in transmitting the train order would be proper on the Southern Railway. However, the train orders were transmitted from a K.I.T. terminal. For this reason, the K.I.T. rules must apply. This is not a situation where policy is being dictated to an owner railroad. Rather, this is simply a situation where we are adhering to the requirements of the Agreement reached between these parties.

 Rule 1, Scope, and Rule 2, Handling of Train orders, clearly indicate that the work should have been performed by an employe or employes covered by the Agreement. Therefore, Carrier violated the Agreement when its non-covered employes handled the train orders. We will direct that a call, as specified under the Agreement, be paid. Any other claim for compensation is rejected.



        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 in accordance with the Opini>n.


                            NATIONAL RAILR>AD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order o:: Third Division


ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By -z P-4'6~
 Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 10th day of March 1982.
~-Pry 1~ 190`L ~s'~,

 e
 Chicago Otf