SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 525
°"~
~a~
AWARD
N0.
27
CASE N0.
27
ORGANIZATION FILE
: GRAND DIV.: ORT 3694 CARRIER FILE:
R-1285 TE-6-62
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF CLAIM
:
1. Carrier violated the terms of an agreement between the
parties hereto when it required or permitted employes not covered by
said agreement to handle train orders at Faonia, Colorado, on November
20 and 29, and on December 1, 6, 8 and 13, 1961.
2. Carrier shall because of the violation set out in paragraph
one hereof, compensate Agent-Telegrapher R. S. Tyson, regularly assigned
at Paonia, Colorado, a call for each of the dates hereinabove set forth.
SPECIFIC FINDINGS:
Under authority of train order No. 5, in typical case cited,
Extra 5111-5902 east departs Grand Junction on November 20, operating
over the Montrose and North Fork Branches to Paonia. While enrcute,
the train performed routine freight work at intermediate stations.
On arrival at Paonia and completing its work the crew ties up. With
this act, the Organization argues the train ceased to exist. The following day, after terminal switching was completed in the Paonia yards,
the return trip was made as Number 5902-5111. The entire movement
was made under the single train order given to the conductor at the
inception of the round trip by the same crew. It was copied by the
telegraph operator at Grand Junction and was received from its dispatcher.
It is the Organizations theory that we are concerned with two
trains; that to defeat the overtime and call rules, Carrier issued a
train order at Grand Junction to one train to be delivered to another
sB~ .ra.~
-A-uro
a~
train at Paonia thereby depriving the agent-telegrapher at Paonia of
his contractural right to handle (receive, copy and deliver) train
orders for trains originating at his station after his tour of duty.
It admits that the same personnel made the round trip. It cites Award
10228 in support of its position.
Ile must be governed by reality rather than fiction in construing
labor agreements, as was Referee Ray in Award 10228, and Referee Sheridan
in Award 10!,18, under similar circumstances.
As was stated in Special Board of Adjustment No. 506, Telegraphers
- Yo.-Pac. R. Co. (Ray):
"Essentially the question at issue here is:
Did persons outside the Agreement perform telegrapher's
work? We think not. In this case a telegrapher performed all the work to which the craft was entitled.
He copied the train order and delivered it to the train
crew at Bloomington. The train crew performed no work
belonging to telegraphers. They did not accept the order
for delivery to another train or make delivery to any
other train. In fact, they retained it for execution
after they left Bay City. We decline to indulge in
· the fiction that the crew took delivery of the order
addressed to them at Bloomington for the purpose of
making a later delivery to themselves at Bay City."
While this was not a round trip move, the principle applies.
The theory advanced by the Organization in this case would
seem to rest on a rule found in some Agreements, but not in the D. & R. G. W.
R., reading:
"At points where telegraphers are employed and train
orders and/or clearance cards are delivered by one
train.to another at such location.. employes shall. be
paid a call as provided in Rule"
Even where such rule was involved, it has been held that such
a rule refers to circumstances where one train meets or overtakes another
train and not to round trips by the same crew, such as we are confronted
with here. (Award 10418).
We find nothing in the applicable Agreement fixing the time and
place for issuing train orders or clearance cards.
AWARD
Clams denied-
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 525
Denver. Colorado
(Signed) J. Glenn Donaldson
March 72, 1964 J. Glenn Donaldson, Neutral Member
C
hairman
(Signed) R. K. Anthis
' R. K. Anthis, Organization Member
(Signed) C. E.
Baldridge
C. E.
Baldridge,
Carrier Member
-3-