AWARD N0. 40
DOCKET NO. 40
CASE N0. -2784
dUG
SPECILA BOARD OF .'ADJUSTMENT N0. 305
THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS
VS.
MISSOURI.PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
(Southern &-Western Districts)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim of the General Committee of The Order of -Railroad Telegraphers on
the Missouri Pacific Railroad, that:
1. Carrier violated the agreement between the parties when on the
9th day. of December, 1957, it failed to use R. J. Diffee, the
Regular Assigned employe-covered by the Telegraphmrs' Agreement,
who was on duty and entitled to perform the work, and required
or permitted Section Foreman Bell, an-employe not covered by
the Agreement, to transmit a communication of record by telephone at Chidster,-Arkansas.
2. Carrier shall now compensate R. J. Diffee, the difference in
the rate-of pay between Agent-Restricted Operator and AgentTelegrapher, for 8 hours for December 9, 1957."
OPINION OF BOARD:
The record here shows that prior to February 17, 1956, a position of AgentTelegrapher existed at Chidester, Arkansas, and that on the above date Carrier reclassified the position to Agent-Restricted' Operator, with a reduction in pay from
that of the former position. On December 9, 1957, claimant here held the AgentRestricted Operator position.
On December 9, 1957, a telephone communication was transmitted by telephone
from the Section Foreman at Chidester to the Train Dispatcher at Little Rock, as
follows:
"Have No. 891 pick up car MP 15246 and allow section gang to
unload at Mile Post 449, Pole 6, It will take one hour to
an hour and fifteen minutes to unload this."
It is alleged the sending of such message by the Section·Foreman was a
communication of record and was not transmitted by the Operator, as required under
the Telegraphers' Agreement. Claim is made'by the employe for the difference in
pay for the amount paid by Carrier at 'the Agent-Restricted Operator pay rate and
the rate of Agent=Qperator pay, as provided by the Agreement.
Carrier denies the communication involved here is a communication which
requires that a record be made, but simply was a request, or a transmittal of requirements by. the Section Foreman in order for him to properly, perform his work.
AWARD N0. 40 . - - PAGE '2
DQCRET'N0. 40
CASE'NO. 2784'
'Nothing- is suggested in the alleged message which would requi".that.4a.message
be
sent.,-See Award No. 5660, Third Division, National Railroad Adjustment,&4ard:'
From a-review of Awards Nos. 17 and 61 of Special Board-of Adjustment No,.
117, ,on this property, we do not find that-there -is,-a similarity, in the facts.and
circumstances such as here involved. Those awards ..lend no support to the matter
involved "here.
In view of the record before us here, we .reaffirm the Opinion and Findings
of Special Board No. 1.17, Award No. 15,.as applicable to the facts before us.
The.record does not supports. favorable award.
FINDINGS: Carrier did not violate -the Agreement as alleged.
AWARD
Claim denied.
SPECIAL BOARD 'OF ADJUSTMENT'.NO..305
/s/ Donald F. McMahon -Chairman
Donald F.. McMahon - Chairman
Dissenting /a/ G. W. Johnson
R.'K.'Anthis -"Organization Member G. W,. Johnson - Carrier'Memb~r
St. Louis, Missouri
June 7, 1960
File 380-1857