SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 132
PARTIES: THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS
THE BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY
AWARD IN DOCKET NO. 9
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. Carrier violated the agreement
between the
parties hereto when on November 1
and 2, 1951, it caused, required and permitted train service employees not
covered by
the
Telegraphers' Agreement,
to handle (receive, copy and deliver) train orders at Pans,
Illinois, which work was and is solely reserved to
employees covered by
the Telegraphers'
Agreement.
2 Carrier be required to compensate C. A. Trout, regularly assigned second trick
at Pana, for a call of two hours pay at overtime rate on November 1 and 2, 1951, because
of said violations.
FINDINGS:
On the dates of claim there were two
telegrapher positions
at Pans, Illinois, a
first trick position assigned 7 A.M. to 3 P.M. and a second trick position held by the
claimant with hours from 6 P.M. to 2 A.M. A turnaround crew, operating from Springfield
to Pana and return, left Pana after 2 A.M. and required orders to return to Springfield.
The claimant, who had no telephone and lived approximately a little more than one-half
mile from the station, had made arrangements with a taxicab company operating out of the
station at Pana to call for him when necessary to respond to a call. The conductor of the
crew was familiar with those arrangements and finding no cab at the station at the time
when it
was necessary for him to get his return running order called the dispatcher and
copied his own orders directly. Claimant files claim for a call under Article 18 (c) of
the Agreement which provides as follows:
"When notified or called to work outside of established hours, employes
will be paid a minimum allowance of two hours at overtime rate."
It is implicit in the above-quoted rule that one who seeks payment thereunder should
make himself available for notification or calling. It is not necessarily required that
the Operator maintain a telephone at home. Here the claimant had established an alternative arrangement for communicating with him when it became necessary for the Carrier's train
crews to avail themselves of his services. It would be just as unreasonable to hold the
Carrier responsible penalty-wise when that communication arrangement fails to function as
it would be to hold the Carrier responsible if an Operator who maintains a telephone in
his home failed to respond when called. The Carrier should not be
required to
suffer the
delay to trains consequent upon a
personal trip
by the conductor or a member of the crew
to call the claimant when such a trip would require walking in excess of a mile going and
returning. Under the circumstances here present we find no merit in this claim.
AWARD
Claim denied.
/s/ Francis J. Robertson
Francis J. Robertson
Chairman
/s/ B. N. Kinkead /s/ T. S. Woods
B. N. Kinkead T. S. Woods
Employe Member Carrier Member
Dated at Baltimore, Md., this
26th day of April, 1957.