SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 355

PARTIES: THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS
THE BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY

AWARD IN DOCKET N0. 137

AWARD 137
CASE None
(BU-7942-33)

STATEMENT "1.- Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when on October
OF CLAIM: 4, 13 and 20, 1960 it required or permitted employees not covered
by said Agreement to handle Train Orders H. M. Junction, Ohio.

2.- Carrier shall be required to compensate in the amount of a day's
pay each operator P: E. O'Leary on October 4, 1960 and M. W.
Fogle on October 13, 1960 and D. C. Waller on October 20; 1960."

FINDINGS: We have already held the phrase "within station limits" to mean within
the ends of the auxiliary tracks serving such station and within the
control of the operator at that station.

We have likewise held that nowhere in the applicable agreement is "yard limits", per se, set forth as a permissible area for use of the telephone.

HM Junction is not within the ends'of the auxiliary tracks serving New River Junction. The fact that HM Junction may, or may not, be within the yard limits of New River Junction does not place it within the station limits of New River Junction.

Carrier argument before this Board that the practice made basis of this claim "has been in effect since the connection track was placed in operation in June, 1954 without any protest or claims having been submitted" does not now place HM Junction within the station limits of New River Junction. A sustaining award is, therefore, required.

A W A R D

Claim sustained.

/s/ R. K. Anthis
R. K. Anthis
Employee Member

Dated at Baltimore, Maryland This 31st day of May, 1963

June 17, 1963

s Edward A. Lynch
Edward A. Lynch
Chairman

/s/ T. S. Woods
T. S. Woods
Carrier Member