THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS
BEFORE THE
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 226
MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS RAILROAD COMPANY )
MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS RAILROAD CO.OF TEXAS)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
AWARD NO. 30
CASE NO. 64-27-22
ORT FILE: BU-4055-22
1. Carrier violated Rule 1 (a) and 1 (d) of the Telegraphers'
Agreement when, at Smithville, Texas on Saturday, June 7,
1958, at 2:30 p.m., it permitted or required one C. W. Moore,
an employe not covered by the Agreement, to report the arrival
of two trains at Smithville.
Carrier shall now be required to compensate Mr. J. H. Browning,
telegrapher, Smithville, a day's pay of eight (8) hours at the
minimum rate for telegraphers.
2. Carrier violated Rule 1 (a) and 1 (d) of the Telegraphers'
Agreement when, at about 2:35 p.m., Saturday, June 7, 1958,
it permitted or required Yardmaster Burch at Eureka Yard
(Houston, Texas), an employe not covered by the Agreement,
to report the arrival of a train at Eureka Yard.
Carrier shall now be required to compensate Mr. R. C. Cathey,
telegrapher, Eureka Yard, a day's pay of eight (8) hours at
the minimum rate for telegraphers.
3. Carrier violated Rule 1 (a) and 1 (d) of the Telegraphers'
Agreement when, at 10:30 a.m., Saturday, June 7, 1958, it
permitted or required one C. W. Moore, an.employe not covered by the agreement, to report the arrival of train No. 74
at Smithville.
Carrier shall now be required to compensate Mr. A. E. Nuckels,
agent-telegrapher, Smithville, a day's pay of eight (8) hours
at the minimum rate for telegraphers.
TABULATION OF FACTS:
The following tabulation of facts taken from the record before the
Special Board presents a "bird's eye" view of the alleged violations in this
· i
TABULATION OF FACTS
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS SATURDAY, JUNE 7. 1958
NATURE OF PERSONNEL
CLAIM NO. ALLEGED FACILITY CLOSED
& STATION TIME VIOLATION USED CLAIMANT FROM TO OFFICE
1. Smithville 2:30 Terminal "OS" Message Browning Asst. Caller7:30 a.m.
p.m. No. 74 and Tele- Tgr. Supt. Moore to
Exa fm North phone Miller at 3:30 p.m.
(Fullmer) at Smith
Waco Ville
2. Eureka Yd. 2:35 Terminal "OS" Same Cathey Ditto Yard- All Day
(Houston) p.m. Ex 109-A Tgr. master
South Burch
(Bullock)
at
Eureka
3. Smithville 10:20 Terminal "OS" Same Nuckels. Ch. Caller 7:30 a.m.
a.m. No. 74 Agt-Tgr Dis Moore to
(Same No.74 Lan- at 3:30 p.m.
as in l.) caster Smith
at
vine
Waco
FINDINGS:
in the tabulation of facts it is shown that in each of the three in
stances of an alleged violation an officer of the Carrier used the message telephone
to procure the information he wanted. From common knowledge it is a reasonable as
sumption that the message telephone is not in the train dispatcher's office and that
it is not in a direct way related to his office or used by him
as
a means of dis
patching trains or receiving "OS" reports either from terminal,offices or from sta
tions on Carriers' system. In the Smithville cases Chief Dispatcher Lancaster at
10:20 a.m. sought information on Train 74. At 2:30 .p .m. Assistant Superintendent
Miller sought the same information on Train 74. There can be no doubt but that the
officers of the Carrier use the message telephone daily, when the offices are open as
well as when they are "closed" to facilitate their work. The evidence does not prove
- 2 -
-X
1
that the information communicated on the message telephone constituted official terminal
"OS" reports. There is no evidence that the Telegrapher in each instance did not give
full official terminal "OS" information on the trains in question to the Train Dispatcher on the Dispatchers' telephone after he came on duty at 3:30 p.m. Furthermore,
it is evident that the information communicated was not such subject matter as is permitted to be forwarded and received by ORT employees only. Officers are entitled to
have free access to the most available and convenient communications facilities the
Carrier is able to furnish for performance of their work up and down a far-flung railroad system. They are not excluded by the Scope Rule from communicating in good
faith by telephone with subordinate employees on all subjects of railroading. Nor
do they effect violation of the ORT agreement by subordinate employees when they
communicate in good faith by telephone with them on subjects pertinent to the per-
formance of their official duties.
A W A R D
Claims denied.
a J DANIEL C. ROGERS
Daniel C. Rogers, Chairman
Attorney at Law
217.-212 Commercial Trust Company
Payette, Missouri
DISSENTING
W. I. CHRISTOPHER, Employee Member
s/
A. F. WINKEL
Deputy President, ORT A. F. Winkel, Carrier. Member
3860 Lindell Boulevard Vice President - Personnel
Sr, :bole 3D,
Missouri Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company
Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co.of Texas
Dallas 2, Texas
Dallas, Texas
,Tune 6, 1960
(BU-4055-22)
- 3 -