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 O.R.T. that a Yard
 master was stationed at 'C' Tower from 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M.,
 August 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, 1955 and performed work at 'C' Tower
 that is the exclusive work of the Block operators and in violation of the Scope
 Rule, which prescribed the classes of employes entitled to perform work under the
 Telegraphers Agreement.

 Account of this violation, I hreby make claim for the following regular employes who were on their rest days and available to perform this service at 'C' Tower:

 DATE CLAIMANT REST DAYS PENALTY CLAIM
 August 1-8 J. A. Klukowicz Sunday and Monday Call
 August 2-9 P. A. Lombardie Monday and Tuesday Call
 August 3 E. J. O'Connor Tuesday and Wednesday Call
 August 4-11 S. Ball Wednesday and Thursday Call
 August 5 J. Schwartzberg Thursday and Friday Call
 August 10 E. Schulkind Extra employe Day's pay
 August 12 S. Halaski Friday and Saturday Call

 in accord with Regulation 4-T-1, claim is made for a call for the above named employes in accordance with Regulation 4-J-1 and a day's pay for E. Schulkind, extra employe, an extra employe who was available to perform this service on August 10, 1955, in accord with Regulations 5-E-1 and 4-D-1." (New York Region Case No. 93 - System Docket No. 312)

 FINDINGS :

        The facts in this case are not in dispute.


Carrier contends there were some "green" operators assigned to this tower. Organization describes the situation as one where both the regularly assigned first shift block operator and leverman were on vacation. An inexperienced block operator and an inexperienced leverman were assigned as vacation relief. It is apparent they were unable to handle the work during the morning rush hour, and the Carrier says it assigned a "special duty yardmaster" as a "matter of good operating procedure" during the morning rush hours "in order to supervise the operation and x x x advise the Block Operator and Leverman should the necessity arise."

 We agree with the Organization that Carrier assigned work normally the work of Telegraphers to a person outside the Agreement. Certainly it is logical to assume that had an experienced operator been on duty the work would have been properly handled. Carrier should, as Organization argues, have assigned an experienced block operator to this task, and not a "special duty yardmaster."
                                          S8A 310


                                        ORT CASE 2115

                                        DOCKET N0. TE-9405

                                        AWARD N0. 43


AWARD:

        Claim sustained.


Signed this loth day of April, 1961.

                      s/ E. A. Lynch


                      E. A. Lynch, Chairman


s/ C. E. Alexander s/ R. J. Woodman

 C. E. Alexander, Carrier Member R. J. Woodman, Employe Member

 r
      El V


JUN ,`,'2 19'6614

 J BERT ~.'`';