SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 355
Parties: THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS
THE BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY
AWARD IN DOCKET NO. 34
STATEMENT
OF CLAIM:
1. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties hereto when on
April 24, 1957, it caused, required and permitted the yardmaster
and yard clerks at Whitcomb Yard, Indiana, employes not covered by
the Telegraphers' Agreement, to communicate directly with the train
dispatcher over the telephone and received information of record
from him concerning the movement of trains, which said information
was essential to the proper operation of the yard, which work was
and is reserved solely to employes covered by the Telegraphers'
Agreement.
2. Carrier be required to compensate an idle operator, extra in preference,
pay for one day (8 hours) because of said violation of April 24, 1957.
FINDINGS:
Article 31 of the predecessor agreement between these parties was changed
in the current agreement. It now appears as Article 36 and deals with the additional right of Carrier to have persons not coming within the scope of the
Telegraphers' Agreement "operate machines or other devices for transmitting or
receiving information directly to or from telegraph offices
in
the same terminal,"
in the manner and under the circumstances there described, as well as with the
use of printing telegraph machines or similar devices by telegraphers for transmitting and receiving "information or communications of record x x x."
The next succeeding paragraph of this Article states:
(a-2) "None of the foregoing applies to the handling of train
orders or Forms A or any communication with a train dispatcher."
The claim before us in this docket is that Carrier permitted employees
not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement to communicate directly with the train
dispatcher over the telephone and receive information of record from him concerning the movement of trains. It is the Organization's position that Article 36
(a-2) proscribes "any communication with a train dispatcher."
It is Carrier's position that under Article 36 (a-2 it (the Carrier) may
not permit its expanded right to the use of printing telegraph machines or similar devices for "the handling of train orders" or Forms A or any communication
with a train dispatcher."
Carrier's position, further, is that Article 36 should be viewed with
Article 35, which, it claims, permits it to require trainmen or other employees
to use the telephone for any purpose other than "blocking trains, handling train
orders or messages except in case of such emergencies as interruption or suspension
AWARD N0. 34
CASE N0. 36
ORT N0. 2954
Page Two.
"of service by reason of wrecks or the forces of nature or where life is
endangered." Under such exception the use of the telephone is limited.
Carrier's position, further, is that the first sentence of Article 35
of the current agreement is identical with the first sentence of the same
Article in the preceding agreement:
"It is not the disposition of the Railroad to displace operators
by having trainmen or other employees operate the telephone or
other devices for the purpose of blocking trains, handling train
orders or messages x x x".
And the Carrier asserts the continued use of this language means that it
may require employees to use the telephone for any purpose other than the three
proscribed above -- blocking trains, handling train orders or messages -- without
violating the agreement. The Carrier views the word "messages" as meaning messages
of record.
This is the first of many similar claims pending before this Board.
Organization's evidence here is what purports to be a verbatim transcript
of the telephone conversation comprising the particular claim. Yet, it is a reconstruction, on the part of the Organization, of a telephone conversation between
two people that was monitored or over heard.
Such evidence, per se, does not constitute proof that these conversations
were "messages of record" as understood on this property.
We believe the conversations here involved to be conversations between
employees and the dispatcher which are necessary in the performance of the work
of these people; clearly they were not blocking trains, handling train orders
or messages of record. They were permissible conversations.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
/s/ B. N. Kinkead
B. N. Kinkead
Employee Member
Dated at Baltimore, Maryland,
this 20th day of February, 1962.
/s/ Edward A. Lynch
Edward A. Lynch
Chairman
/s/ T. S. Woods
T. S. Woods
Carrier Member