SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTLOHFS NO. 355 CASE N0.281


PARTIES: TF0 ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPFIERS
 THE BALTIMORE ATID OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY
 AWARD IN DOCIG;T NO.~ 281 '
 STATEMENT 1. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties
 OF CLAIM: when, on March ., 5, 6, ?, 13, 19, 23, 25, 26, 23,
 28, 1961 it required or permitted employees not
 covered by said Agreement-!to transmit and/or receive
 messages and other communications at East Salamanca,
 New York from other employees not,covered by said
 Agreement located at Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania:
 2. Carrier shall compensate the following operators in
 the amount of one dayls pay (8 hours) for each date
 set forth after their respective names:
 A. N. Johnson March 6,-?, 2?, 28, 1967
 S. M. Shaffer March la, 19, 25, 1961
                A. G. Brehm March 23, 1961


FINDINGS: Involved here are claims of alleged contract vio
 lations on ten dates in March of 1961.
 One alleged conversation (March 18, 1961) took
 place between the Shop Foreman and a clerk in the
 Master Uechanicts office at Punxsutawney. On the
 basis of our prior Awards, this claim will be
 sustained:
 The remaining claims are predicated on phone con
 versations between the Chief Dispatcher and a
 dispatcher: Under our prior Awards, the use of
 the telephone by a Carrier officer not covered by
 any rules agreement (Chief Dispatcher) is permie='.'
 -any so long as he does not block trains, handle
 train orders or messages of record. (Awards Nos,
 34, 730 196/2, 196/3 and 229, among others.)
 it is argued by the Carrier that much'of the infor
 mation here subjected to claim "was plainly pros-
              pective information ...The calling time based on the

              balance of the conversation was certainly prospec

              tive in nature and certainly did not indicate the

              time the crews were actually called, or the time

              the train departed the terminal. Fee agree.


              The Chief Dispatcher is not restricted in his use of the telephone, except as already noted; and he most certainly has the right to call a dispatcher or anyone else to seek prospective information and to discuss with them information that is necessary

                                    S~, ~ 355

                                    Docket No. 231


                        2


            in the discharge of his duties and responsibilities, If ho must know what time a certain train tied up, or is going out; or the availability of motive power or manpower he has a right to secure it, as he did, for his own use.


            We have esaa,mined all the organization's alleged "messages," and with the =ception of the claim for Irlarch 18, 3.961 all the subject conversations do not constitute the blocking of trains, handling of train orders or messages of record within the meaning and intent of the prior interpretations of this Board.


                    L1 W A R D


            Claim for 18, 1961 sustained; all other claims

            denied. ..


                                      ~.i


      - ' war lie ynL,

                    Chairman


U. A. PrqA§-TY--< :`_"
 Employee ember Carrier Member

 A.cv.D..:~e y"./Yl'· ~ (:-4W.

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