SYSTEM DOCKET 593


                SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 310


The Order of Railroad Telegraphers

and

The Pennsylvania Railroad Company


STATEMENT OF CLAIM, "Claim of the General Committee -of the ORT on the Pennsyl
vania Railroad that the Carrier violated the terms of the
effective Agreement when on September 19, 1958, it abolished two assignments of
Operator-Clerks at West Chester, Pa., 5000 A.M. to 1-00 P.M. and 1:00 P.M. to
9:00 P.M., without in fact discontinuing the-work properly belonging to and per
formed by the two Operator-Clerks at that station, and transferred the perform
ance of same to employes not covered by the Agreement and the work formerly per
formed by the two Operator-Clerks at West Chester, Pa., shall be restored to the
Telegraphers' Agreement and performed only by employes entitled to such work
under the Agreement and in consequence of this violation, J. H. Garland and J.
F. Cahaley, Jr., the employes who were improperly removed from their assignments
at West Chester, Pa., as well as all other employes resultantly displaced from
their assignments, shall be compensated for any loss of earnings beginning with
the date their assignments were improperly declared abolished or the date they
were displaced and continuing each day thereafter until they are restored to
their respective assignments." (Philadelphia District Case -..System Docket No.
5 93)

              FINDINGS*


On September 19, 1958 Carrier changed the single track between End of Block Sign and End of Track (West Chester) from a main track to a running track of no assigned direction, and placed this track in charge of the operator at Media It states its ticket office at West Chester was thereafter opened only from 6>30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., Monday through Friday during which ticket sales were handled by the Agent. It states further that block work formerly required of the two Operator-clerks subsequently was performed by the Block Operators at Media. These employees, in addition to selling tickets and work incident to station duties, were required to also handle block work at the block station pertaining to train movements.

The claim is directed against abolition of the two positions "without in fact discontinuing the work properly belonging to Claimants. Their work involved basically two elements -- general clerical, over which petitioning organization exercises no exclusive jurisdiction and which is part of overlapping duties involved, and block work. So far as the latter is concerned, the train conductor now calls Media by telephone and verbally secures block conditions. This is permissible under Arbitration Award 153.

There is in the record evidence of 3 train orders copied subsequent to abolition of the jobs in question. Train orders 6 and 8 are in violation of Arbitration Award 153; Train order No. 12 was issued in an emergency and is, therefore, exempt from the requirements of Arbitration Award 153.
59A 310 Awa 21

Consequently Organization claim that the two operator-clerk positions be restored and the incumbents thereof compensated for any loss of earnings is denied.

    Payment is allowed the eligible man for each of Train Orders No. 6 and No. 8.


Awards 8373 and 8374, cited by the Organization, are not in point; the.Carrier there concerned was not covered by Arbitration Award 153.

AWARD e

    Claim for restoration of two Operator-clerk positions is denied.


Claim for two Train Orders copied in violation of Arbitration Award 153 is sustained.

Signed this 10th Day of April, 1961.

                    /s/ E. A. Lynch


                    E. A. Lynch,. Chairman


/s/ C. E., Alexander

C. E> Alexander_ Carrier Member R. J. Woodman, Employe-Member
                                        saA 3~0

                                        pwP 21


                      DISSENT

No Board of Adjustment has the authority to modify or amend existing rules but that is what we find the end result to be based on the "Findings" and "Award" of the majority. The Third Division ruled in Award No. 5703:

        "* * * we cannot make a rule nor modify existing rules * * *. Renegotiation thereof in the manner provided by the Railway Labor Act is the proper source of authority for that purpose."

Arbitration Award No. 153 awarded a train order rule, it did not amend the Scope Rule of the currently effective agreement extant between the parties. Yet here we have the majority making a finding and an award that has gone beyond the Arbitration Award. The majority has here actually modified and amended the Scope Rule.
Arbitration Award No. 153 awarded a rule which would not require Train and Engine Service Employes to copy train orders, except in emergencies, at points where and during the hours when Block or Telegraph or Telephone Operators are scheduled to be on duty, or at block stations which have been closed -. or abolished since May 1, 1938, or at block limit stations which have been closed or abolished since May 1, 1938 or which may thereafter be established. The Scope Rule of the agreement contains the classifications: "Telegraphers, Telephone-Operators (except Telephone Switchboard Operators), Block Operators." The Arbitration Board awarded a train order rule as attested by the following:

"NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD

ARBITRATION BOARD

Arbitration Case No. 153

Case No. A-3521


In the Matter Of:

DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY AND ITS EMPLOYES REPRESENTED BY THE BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS, BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMO= TIVE FIREMEN AND ENGIMEMEN, BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN, AND THE OLDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS.
                                          5 ak 3 1 o


                                          Aw D ~.I'


                AWARD OF BOARD OF ARBITRATION


Pursuant to an arbitration agreement entered into by the above named parties on March 28, 1951, in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, the Board of Arbitration consisting of Winfield G, Salmonson, Carriernamed member, C, He Keenan, Employ.-named member, and David L, Cole, neutral arbitrator, who was designated Chairman, having duly heard the parties and considered their evidence and arguments, does hereby make its award as follows:

"1> It declines to award the rule proposed by the Organization as set forth in Paragraph Fourth of the aforementioned arbitration agreement.

2, It awards a rule in the language following, to become effective on February 15, 1952, and to continue in effect until it is changed or modified in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, as amended:

'Except in emergencies, Train and Engine Service Employes shall not be required to copy train orders at points where, and during the hours when Block or Telegraph or Telephone Operators are scheduled to be on duty, or at block stations which have been closed or abolished since May 1, 1938, or at block limit stations which have been established since May 1, 1938, or which may hereafter be established,

(1) The emergencies referred to shall include only storms, washouts, tornadoes, obstructions to tracks, slides, accidents, casualties, wrecks, engine or equipment failures, hot boxes, or break-in-two's, provided such cause or causes would result in serious delay and were not anticipated by the train dispatcher when the train was at the last open block or telegraph station,

(2) At block stations which have been closed on certain tricks or during certain hours continuously since May 1, 1938, the restrictions of this rule shall not apply on such tricks, or during such hours.

(3) The train orders referred to in this rule are those of the type now designated as Form 19 Train Orders in their various forms, and as illustrated on pages 35 through 42 of the Carrier's Book of Rules, edition of September 25, 19490

(4) The restrictions of this rule shall not apply to temporary block stations which have been closed or abolished or which may hereafter be closed or abolished. Temporary block stations as referred to herein, are defined to be block stations opened for a temporary limited purpose only, such as the clearing or repairing of tracks, bridges or other facilities, construction projects, or the movement of some special purpose train or trains.'

                              BOARD OF ARBITRATION


                              /s/ David L. Cole,

                              Neutral Arbitrator and Chairman


                              /s/ Winfield G. Salmonson,

                              Carrier Arbitrator

                                        58A 31b ~w 21


_ 3 _
December 12, 1951
DISSENT BY BOARD MEMBER C. H. KEENAN

I consider the award agreed to by the majority of the members of this Arbitration Board to be very improper ind unjust to the involved employes; it seriously discriminates against them, and is not responsive to the evidence of record. Moreover, this award fails to require the correction of practices that violate the inherent fundamental principal of craft rights and representation as contemplated by the Railway Labor Act, as amended. Therefore, I decline to participate in the rendition of the award.

                          /s/ C. H. Keenan, Board Member.'

As may be noted the rule, directed at Train and Engine Service Employes, is that they shall not be required to copy train orders . . . at block stations closed or abolished after May 1, 1938, or at block limit stations established after that date except in emergencies. An understanding, reached in 1938 between the parties, not only embraced the handling of train orders by Train and Engine Service Employes but all other block operator's work as well, such as blocking and reporting trains, handling switches and clearance cards, transmission and receiving messages, and all other related duties assigned and accruing to the block station positions at the time of abolishment. The Arbitration award did not alter or otherwise annul the Scope Rule or the Oral Understanding as to block operator's work being off limits to other employes if the office was one closed after May 1, 1938.
The Arbitration award is supplemental to the Scope Rule and to the Oral Understanding of May 1, 1938, it is not a substitute thereof, hence we here have an erroneous award.

                          /s/ Russell J. Woodman


Russell J. Woodman

Employe Member