MOP Pile No. ORT File
loo.
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJusn= No. ,13(
ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPFILTS
-._
and _
MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD CT4PAPTX .,
Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the
Missouri Pacific Railroad that:
. CASE 110. 1
1. Carrier violated the terms of the agreement between.. the parties when .
on September 21, 22, 23,'24, 25, 25, 29, 30, 1954, it directed T., V1.
Burns; regularly assigned Manager, CTC Telegrapher, Poplar Bluff.
Relay Office, to leave train orders and clearance cards pinned to
the train register for later delivery to trains leaving after Claimant Burns had gone off duty and telegraph office had been closed.
2. Carrier shall now pay T. SW. Burns for a call of three hours at pro
rata rate of pay for September.21, 22, 23, 24, 25,
28,
29 and 30,
1954, when he was available and entitled to perform the work..
. CASE P10. 2
1. Carrier violated the terms of the agreement between the parties when
on September 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30 and October 16, 18, 21P 22,
23, 25,
28,
29 and 30, 1954, it directs:. L. R. Ba[;ley, regularly
assigned night Chief CTC Telegrapher, Poplar Bluff Relay Office, to
leave train orders and clearance cards, pinned 'co the train register..
for later delivery to trains leaving,after Claimant Bagley had gore -
off duty and telegraph office had been closed:
2. Carrier violated the terms of the agreement between the parties when
on October 1, 2,
4,
7,
8, 9,
11 and 15, it required
or
permitted
employes not covered by the agreement at Poplar Bluff relay office
to handle (receive and deliver train orders and clearance cards for
trains leaving after Claimant Bagley had.gone off duty and telegraph
office had been closed.
3. Carrier shall now pay L. R. Bagley for a three hour call at the pro
rata rate of pay for each of the following days: September 20, 23)_24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and October 1, 2,
4,
7,
8,
9, 11, 15, 16, 18,
21, 22, 23, 25, 28,,29 said 30, when he was available and, entitled ..
to perform the work.
Award No. 56
Docket No. 56
CASE N0.
3
1. Carrier violated the terms of the agreement between the parties when
on September 22, 26, 27, 28 and 29, 1954, it directed B. L. Shadoin,
regularly assigned rest day relief CTC Telegrapher, Poplar Bluff
Relay Office, to leave train orders and clearance cards pinned to
the train register for later delivery to trains leaving after Claimant Shadoin had gone off duty and telegraph office had been closed.
2. Carrier shall now pay B. L. Shadoin for a call of
3
hours pro rata
rate of pay for September 22, 26, 27, 28 and 29, 1954, when she was
available and entitled to perform the work.
OPINION OF BOARD: It is alleged here that Rule 1(b) (the scope Rule) was violated
on the dates enumerated in the numerous claims with
which we
are here concerned when
the respondent required the named claimants to leave train orders and clearance cards
pinned to the train register for later delivery to trains leaving after the said
claimants had gone off duty, and that the Carrier further violated the agreement on
other enumerated dates when it required or permitted employes not covered by the
agreement to handle, that is, receive and deliver, train orders and clearance cards
after one of the named claimants had gone off duty and the telegraph office was
closed. For the violation alleged, reparations are sought for
3
hours at the pro
rata rate, that is, a call for each of the dates set forth in the claims on which
the numerous violations occurred.
This docket consists of three cases involving three different
claimants, namely, T. W. Burns, L. R. Bagley and B. L. Shadoin, and the issue in each
violation is identical except those in which claimant L. R. Bagley is involved, when
alleged violations occurred on October 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 15, when train orders
and clearance cards were handled by the train dispatcher when claimant Bagley was off
duty and the telegraph office closed.
Rule 1.(h) reads as follows:
"No other employe excep: train dispatcher, and those co:.~-~!d by this agreement, will be perm:J.tted to handle train orders, except that in an emergency
the conductor may coif a train order from the train dispatcher and ii' t'aere
be a telegrapher employed at the point where the conductor copied the order,
he (the telegrapher) will be paid a call (three hours at the pro rata hourly
rate)."
The Organization pointed out that at the time the violations
enumerated above occurred there were two 7-day positions at the location in question,
one was the manager with assigned hours 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., and the other was
Night Chief Operator with assigned hours 8:45 p.m. to 4:45 a.m. These two positions
were covered by rest day relief assignment held by claimant Shadoin.
The office was closed during two periods of the day and night,
namely, from 4:00 p.m. to 8:45 p.m. and from 4:45 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. It was during
these two periods when the office was closed that the.violations occurred.
- 2
Award No.
56
Docket No.
56
The Organization pointed out that the Scope Rule of the agreement clearly
gave 'to the telegraphers the exclusive right to handle train orders and clearance
cards and that the handling of-same included the physical delivery thereof, and that
in the instant cases the delivery was not achieved within the meaning of the agreement when the said claimants were directed to leave train orders and clearance cards
on the train register or where the said train orders and clearance cards were
handled by a train dispatcher.
The respondent took the position that there was no provision in the Scope
Rule which abrogated its right to instruct a telegrapher who had received and copied
a train order to leave same on the train register to be picked up at a later time.
The Carrier contended that when the same was received and copied, the telegrapher's work was done and that, in the instant cases, no other "handling" of the
said orders or clearance cards was evident.
The respondent further asserted that the Organization could not identify
any violative act of the agreement nor identify any person who had been guilty of
receiving nor delivering copy of a train order and that in no instance present here
was any employe covered by the effective agreement deprived of any work.
The respondent further contended that there is nothing in the call rule
which would require the payment of reparations here sought since the call rule provides only for payment of 3 hours for service actually performed and that, in this
instance, no service was performed by any of the claimants on any of the enumerated
dates. ',
It is to be noted that Rule 1(b) is a prohibitory rule insofar as the
Carrier is concerned in that, with the exception of train dispatchers, no employe not '
covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement is permitted to handle train orders except by
conductors under certain emergency
conditions which
do not exist here. Since it is
clear that train dispatchers may, as well as telegraphers, handle train orders, those
alleged violations involving claimant L. R. Bagley in which train orders were handled
by the train dispatcher are not good claims and must, of necessity, be denied.
Thus, we come to that portion of those claims
involving each
of -the named
claimants in which train orders and clearance cards were ordered pinned to the train
register for later delivery when the claimants were not on duty and the telegraph
office closed.
An examination of the facts of record in these claims do not disclose a
valid reason why this Board should depart from a long line of awards on the Third
Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board which have held that the acts here
complained of are in contravention of the Scope Rule of the Telegraphers' Agreement.
We think that these portions of these claims are valid for.the reason stated in Award
5013,
in which it was held:
"We are not disposed to labor long on the Carrier's first point. This
Division of the Board,.after extended and spirited debate on the subject, is now definitely committed to the view that a Train Order Rule
containing language of the kind to be found in the one now under consideration is clear and unambiguous and that its terms, particularly
the phrase 'to handle train orders', are to be construed as contemplating the receiving, the copying, and the delivering of train orders
to the train crews which are to execute them."
-3-
and in Award
5122,
wherein it was held:
Award No.
56
Docket No.
56
"It has long been the rule that the work of a class of employes reserved to
them in a collective agreement cannot be delegated to others without violating the agreement. The Telegraphers' Agreement reserves the sending,
receiving, copying and delivering of train orders to the telegraphers.
It is also well established that the receiving of such communications includes copying and delivering to the train crews which are to execute
them. Award
1713.
The handling of train orders at a station where there
is an employe covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement is work belonging to
that employe. His right to the work cannot be circumvented by devices
such as depositing the train orders in waybill boxes or attaching them to
train registers."
For the reasons stated, these claims are meritorious.
FINDINGS: The Special Board of Adjustment No.
117,
upon the whole record and all the
evidence, finds and holds:
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 Special Board of Adjustment has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein; and,
That the Carrier violated the effective agreement.
AWARD
pro rata rate.
Case No. 1, involving T. W. Burns, sustained for a call of 3 hours at the
Case No. 2, involving L. R. Bagley, sustained for a call of 3 hours at the
pro rata rate for September 20, 23, 24, 25,
26, 27, 30
and October
16, 18, 21,
22,
23,
25, 28, 29
and 30,
1954.
The request for pay of a call at
3
hours at the pro rata
rate to L. R. Bagley for October 1, 2,
4, 7, 9,
11 and
15,
is denied.
Case No.
3,
involving B. L. Shadoin, sustained for a call of
3
hours at
the pro rata rate.
`3
~3.v .
PECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTIENT N0.
117
i
f'_ _.c~ Liv£h - i rnith - G' airm
° A
C. 0. Griffith,/- 6 oye Member
St. Louis, Missouri
August
9, 1956
G.
W0.
Ts
n - Carrier Member