SPECIAL
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 186
AWARD N0. 2
Organizations Files Carriers Files
R-958 TE-11-56
R-961 TE-12-56
R-959 TE-13-56
R-963 TE-7.4-56
R-964 TE-15-56
STATEPENT OF CLAIM:
IlClaim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad
Telegraphers on The Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad
that,
Ifl.
The Carrier violated the agreement between the
parties when it required or permitted employes not under
the agreement to perform work belonging to employes under
the agreement,
't2. As a result of such violations Carrier be required to pay an amount equivalent to one days compensation, on the dates next following their names: H. 0.
Williams, February 20 and 23, 1956; R. L. Smith, February 27,
28, 29; March 1 and 2, 1956; G. E. 'Iheeler, March 3, 5, 6,
10 and 12, 1956; S. D. Macoskey, February 23, 24, 27, March 23
and 26, 1956; H. M. Routh, February 27, 1956; F. R. Morgan,
February 27, March 12 and 26, 1956; J. J. Flynn, March 6 and
12, 1956; 0. P. Simpson, March 12, 1956; J. G. Harrington,
March 16, 1956; E. T. ivurdock, March 25, 1956."
FINDINGS: This claim involves the use of the dispatchers telephone circuit
to transmit messages to the dispatcher by section foreman, signal maintainers,
track patrolmen, carmen and others outside the Telegraphers, Agreement,
from various telephone booths connected with the circuit at points where no
telegrapher was employed to advise the dispatcher as to the status of their
work and the resulting condition of track or signals or cars being repaired..
Nine of the calls here complained of resulted in the issuance of train orders;
eight of them were reports that a bad order car was ready to move; six were
reports that a slide -fence was again in order; one resulted in a message to
investigate; and one was the conveyance of unnecessary information.
i
Award No. 2 (Continued)
It is the position of the organization that all work of telephone
operators is under the agreement and that these calls were the proper work
of a telephone operator and that they constituted communication work in
lieu of telegraphy and that they resulted in temporary records, hence were
communications of record.
It is further urged that Carrier violated Article V, Section 1 (a)
of the Agreement of August 21,
1954,
when it denied the claim without stating
the reasons in writing. The only reason stated in making the claim was that
it was a violation of the Scope Rule of the Telegraphers' Agreement without
any statement as to the grounds for such contention and in such case we think
the answer of the superintendent that he could not see any violation was
sufficient compliance with the rule.
None of the messages shown in the record here complained of were
train orders or matters relating to the control of transportation or concerned
the operation or movement of trains, hence the cownunication of these messages
to the dispatcher at points where no operator was employed was not work which
belonged exclusively to telegraphers as in substitution for that formerly performed by telegraphers but rather was an extension of the means and methods of
communication other than that belonging exclusively to that craft.
Further, it is not disputed that for more than 40 years the practice
here complained of had existed without claim that it was in violation of the
Agreement and we think such practice in the application of the agreement
to the communications before us where the line of demarcation is vague and
uncertain shows an agreed interpretation of the agreement between the parties
which should guide us in the present claim.
2
Award No. 2 (Continued)
AUARD: Claim denied.
Dated at Denver, Colorado, Augustr-~
1957.
Nortimer Stone
Chairman, Neutral Member
Z. G. Heinlein
Carrier Member
Woodman (Dissenting)
ization Member