SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. N0. 305



STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

(Southern & Western Districts)


AWARD N0. 43
DOCKET N0. 43
(CASE 2694)

"Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the Missouri Pacific Railroad, that:





Carrier shall now pay J. Barnett, Telegrapher, Eads, Colorado, one call, three hours at the pro rata rate of .$2.14 per hour for September 29, 1957, for violation when member of the train crew on No. 68, Engine 567 'OS' 'ed his train as 'By Diston' and was given instructions from the Dispatcher to 'Go down main line to Horace.'






WIA
ARD'60! 43 _ ..Page,, 2 e · .
DOCKET N0. 43 _ .



















OPINION OF BOARD:

The instant docket, consisting of 10 separate and distinct claims for a call filed by employes subject to the provisions of the Telegraphers' Agreement, contends that train service employes, by use of the radio, OSed trains to the train dispatcher at Pueblo, Colorado at various locations on line of road, some of which are alleged to have occurred while the train involved was passing a station and others occurring on line of road at various locations between stations. It is further contended that these conversations between train service employes and the dispatcher took place while the trains involved were moving.

It is the Carrier's position that the conversations which took place between members of the various train crews involved in these claims and the dispatcher at
AWARD N0. 43 PAGE 3
DOCKET N0. 43

Pueblo were for the purpose of conveying information to the dispatcher and did not constitute an OS as contended by the Organization.

The record here before us reveals that there is no dispute between the parties concerning the fact that conversations did take place between train service employes and the dispatcher on various dates listed. We have reviewed the record before us and the numerous awards cited by the parties in support of their respective contentions but we are unable to conclude therefrom that there was any violation of the Telegraphers' Agreement by reason of these conversations. We further find that these conversations did not constitute an OS as alleged by the employes.

In view of our conclusions as set forth above, there is nothing in the record before us to support the claims for compensation based upon the alleged violation of the Telegraphers' Agreement. Claims should be denied.

FINDINGS: Carrier did not violate the Agreement.








                  Donald F. McMahon '- Chairman


Dissenting` /s/ G. W. Johnson
R. K. Anthis - Organization Member G. W., Johnson - Carrier Member

St. Louis, Missouri June 10, 1960

File 380-1817 380-1829
380-1816 380-1835
380-1823 380-1836
380-1827 380-1837
380-1818 380-1838