PARTIES: THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAP'riERS



STATEMENT 1 - Carrier violated the Agreement between the
 OF CLAIM: parties when on December 13, 1959 it required
 or permitted an employee not covered by said
 Agreement to deliver a train order at Wash
 ington, Pennsylvania.
 2 - Carrier shall compensate an idle Operator in
 the amount of a day's pay (8 hours) on
 December 13, 1959.

 FINDINGS: Here we have a situation where a Train Dispatcher
 personally handed to the conductor of a train a train
 order annulling a previous train order issued by him. Carrier's
 argument that the Train Dispatcher in question is an Operator
 covered by the ORT Agreement who, on the date in question, was
 on duty as an extra train dispatcher is of no avail. So far as
 this claim is concerned he was a dispatcher. The dispatcher
 copied the train order and delivered it personally. This is not
 denied.

 Carrier concedes (Tr. p. 4245) that prior to the abolishment of the operator position at "Bill (Washington) "it had been the practice that train orders would be telephoned to trains at intermediate points through the operator, if that ever became necessary. However, if a train was in the vicinity of or at Washington, then the train order would be delivered personally
 to avoid excessive delay ".

 On such occasions prior to the abolishment of the operator position at Washington, personal delivery was made by the operator, In the case before us here, delivery was made personally by the dispatcher, and sustaining award is required.

                          t"7 A R D


          Claim sustaiaa . ~/


                                  ~r


                      war ynch'~

                      Chairman


      C~ R. rest ·__. _ E.ii~'~

      EmployeelX11:5mber " Carrier Member


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