SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 355
PARTIES:
THE
ORDER OF RAILROAD
TEXEGRAPRERS
THE BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY .
STATEMENT 1 - Carrier violated the Agreement between the
OF CLAIM: parties on April 7 and 14, 1962 when it re
quired or permitted employees not covered
by the Agreement to handle train orders at
Holloway, Ohio, at a time when the Operator
2 - Carrier shall compensate Operator D. C.
Shannon in the amount of a minimum call
FINDINGS: It is a fact that claimant Operator D. C. Shannon does
prepare and handle such train orders as are necessary
during his tour of duty from 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM.
We will follow that line of Awards which holds that an
operator's basic right to handle train orders does encompass
r
preparation and personal delivery of such orders.
~.f
This Carrier, in its submission on Docket No. 134,
stated that while there was nothing in the Agreement that "would
limit the Company from having one crew to handle train orders to
a train or engine at another point, it has been recognized that
this would not be done where the crew had no relationship to the
receiving crew, but would only be done where there is such a
relationship as in the case of an order being handled for or by
a helper engine or by a conductor making a round trip who received orders on the outbound trip that affected the return trip."
In its argument before this Board, Carrier cited, in
support of its position in this case, our Awards in Dockets Nos.
129 and 33/11. These were denial Awards involving use of the
telephone, and the denials were predicated on the fact that in
both cases the track car lineups were delivered to the recipients
"personally by the Operator."
w
A R D
Claim sustained..
Edward . ync~
Chairman
.r
. ki.
Yre&Sly
1d. . Yl
Employee . Carrier Member
Dated at Baltimore, Maryland,
this 16th day of September, 1964.