CAR. FILE: 2759 COX. FIIE: A-3549 GR. DIV. BU-9132-33 CASE N0. 243 SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTD184NT 170. 355

PARTIES; TETE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS
THE BALTIMORE AND OI11O RAILROAD COMPA117Y
ATIARD IN DOCKET N0. 242
STATEMENT 1, Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties
OF CLAIM: when on July 5, and 24, 1961, it required or permitted
a Conductor to use the telephone at SD Cabin, South
Dayton to communicate with the Train Dispatcher, sec
uring paxmission to use Track ,'#1.
2. Carrier shall compensate in the amount of a day's pay
(8 hours) T7. S. Gillette on July 5, 1961 and E, E.
Easton on July 24, 1961.
FINDINGS: The incident giving rise to this claim is described
by the organization as follows:

" ....the Conductor in charge of a work extra engaged in maintenance of way service, while at SD Cabin, South Dayton, desired to use I-To, 1 track northward from SD Cabin in order to clear Train No. 54, a first class train. The conductor used the telephone to communicate with the Train Dispatcher, requesting permission to proceed northward on No. 1 track. The Train Dispatcher operated an electric lock to release the signal and then a member of the train crew must operate a push button in the telephone booth in order to receive a proceed signal to permit the train to occupy Track No. 1 in this automatic block territory."

The incidents ,giving rise to the two claims in Docket No. 133 before this Board wore described by the Organization as follows:

"On October 1, 1959 the engineer on Extra 400? East called the operator at Patterson Creek to secure permission to use Track No. 1 from Okonoko to Orleans Road; the engineer also pushed the button releasing the signals for this movement.

"On October 19, 1959 the engineer of Extra 4034

East called the operator at Patterson Creek, reported

(OS°d) train No. 1 by Okonoko, then secured permis.

ston to use No, l tracts frog Okonoko to Orleans

Road; he also pushed the button releasing the sig.

nals for this movement." _

The main Carrier defense hero is that the train in question was "moving from CTC territory on reverse main track; (that) they are doing so from CTC

6$A 355

Docket No. 242

territory and it is necessary for train dispatcher to cake this lineup from CTC machine at Dayton and for crews to push button within CTC territory to move into automatic block territory. CTC territory extends between 3D Cabin and Carlisle,"

Tt is the Carrier's position drat in view of our prior awards in claims occurring in CTC territory, this claim should be denied.

However, the use of the telephone here was for the movement of a train in automatic block territory, Movement of a train in CTC territory is not involved here,

Tlhat we have here is the sane situation we had before us in Docket No. 133. We will follow that Award and sustain the claim,.1,

,,,, ~~W A R D

Claim sustai~a . i

Dated at Baltimore, Maryland
Dated at Baltimore, Maryland this 16th day of September, 1964.

EMU . USES Chairman

Carrier Member