Parties: THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS CASE N0. 11
THE BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANx (ORT File 2501)



STATEMENT OF CLAIM:





FINDINGS:

We have already held that telephone calls to a dispatcher to inquire the estimated arrival of approaching trains or the time at which trains did arrive are not violative of Article 36 (a-2), and are, therefore, permissible conversations. To the extent Organization asserts claim here for that type of conversation, such claims will be denied.

We do find, however, that the supplying of calls on outbound trains does constitute a violation because this clearly is a "message" within our concept of that term.

However, we find this Carrier has already settled those claims, appearing in this docket, for October 10, 12, 13 and the second claim for October 11.

The remaining claims -- the first claim for October 11, and the claims for October 18 and 20 -- involve inquiries as to arrival times or existence of trains and are permissible conversations. These claims will be denied.

Organization's claim for subsequent dates is denied for the reasons set forth in.our Award in Docket No. 52.



      Claims disposed of in accordance with findings.


/s/ Edward A. Lynch

Edward A. Lynch

Chairman


/s/ B. N. Kinkead - Dissenting as /s/ T. S. Woods
B. N. Kinkead to subsequent T. S. Woods
dates. Carrier Member

Dated at Baltimore, Maryland, this 20th day of February, 1962.