SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 266
TIrE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS
THE DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA AND WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT--0R!CLAIM.
Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad Telegraphers on
The Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad that:
1. The Carrier violated the terms of the Telegraphers' Agreement when
and because starting on Saturday, August 25, 1951 and continuing each
Saturday through March 15, 1952, it required or permitted an employe
not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement to receive communications of
record by telephone from Binghamton, which communications are handled
by an employe under said Agreement Mondays through Fridays.
2. The Carrier further violated the terms of the Telegraphers' Agreement when and because it did not render a decision to reach the
Organization within the time limits prescribed.
3. In consequence of these violations the Carrier shall pay Operator
0. L. Chadwick, Norwich, for thirty (30) "Calls" in the amount of
$157.80.
OPINION OF BOARD:
Following the abolishment of the Roustabout at Norwich, one of the duties
assigned to the Claimant Clerk-Operator at this location was to obtain information by telephone from the operator at East Binghamton Yard office on cars moving
to Norwich on Train BU 21, in order to make up the switch list for BU 21 and to
notify consignees of cars being delivered to them. Claimant Clerk-Operator was
regularly assigned Monday through Friday, with Saturday and Sunday as rest days.
Beginning August 25, 1951 it became necessary to obtain this information on
Saturday, whereupon Yard Clerk Wilcox, who was regularly assigned at Norwich
freight office, was assigned to perform this work. Effective March 17, 1952 the
Yard Clerk position was abolished, and thereafter the Clerk-Operator was called
to perform this Saturday work. The claim is that by using the Yard Clerk on
Saturday as indicated above, Carrier improperly removed work from the scope of
the Telegraphers' Agreement.
As we have previously held (Award No. 1 of this Special Board), the transmission and/or receipt of consists and similar information via telephone is not
work exclusively reserved to telegraph service employees. Thus we find no merit
to this claim. Moreover, we are unable to conclude that a decision on the merits
of this case is precluded by any procedural defect in Carrier's handling of this
claim.
A W A R D:
Claim denied.
/s/ Lloyd H. Bailer
Lloyd H. Bailer, Neutral Member
Dissenting /s/ F. Diegtel
W. I. Christopher, Employee Member F. Diegtel, Carrier Member
New
York,
New
York
July 8, 1959