ORT FILE: 2996'


                  SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0.'553 '.


                  THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TEIEGRAPHERS '


                  SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY (PACIIPIC LINES)


                          ROY R. RAY_ Referee 1 ,. -


      STATEMENT OF CLAIM: ,


              "Claim of the General,Committee of The Order of Railroad -

    Telegraphers on the Southern Pacific (Pacific Liiies),,that:,.

    1. The Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties

    hereto whent effective January 16, 1959, it declared .

    · abolished the second shift telegrapher-clerk position -

    at Avon, California without in fact abolishing the work

    thereof and required an employe of another craft and

    class, assigned at Walnut Creeks California, to travel -

    to the Avon agency and there perform the work of the _'

    purportedly abolished position.

    2. The Carrier shall, because of the violation set-out above,

    pay the senior idle extra telegrapher or in the absence

    of an available telegrapher A. G, KeZtemenj the former

    occupant of the second shift telegrapher-clerk's,position

    at Avon, California, a day's pay at the rate of the

    nominally abolished second shift telegrapher-clerk's

    position at Avon, Californisy for each day:Monday through

    Friday, commencing January 16 1959 and for each day

    Monday through Friday thereafter so,lbng as the,violation

    continues."


      OPINION OF BOARD: '


              For several. years prior,to'January 169 1959. the assignments


      at Avon, ,California consisted of an Agent-Telegrapher. whose hours were


      8 a.m. to 4 p.m. and a Telegrapher~Clerk with hours of l.p.m. to 9 p.m.


' Effective January 169 1959, Carrier abolished:the Telegrapher-Clerk,-
      position and changed the hours of the Agent-Telegrapher to 10 a.m, to


                                -ly -

. ', i , r SB A 553

    6 p,m, Carrier also assigned a Freight-Clerk from Walnut,'Creek (a few miles distant) whose hours were 9,a:m, to 6 p.m., to work approximately five hours of his"shift.at Avon-ea,ch-afternoon assist- . ing the Agent-Telegrapher in the performance of clerical duties. Thereafter,, and until March ll' 1964, all of the .communications work was performed by the Agent-.Telegrapher and the clerical duties were performed by either the Agent-Telegrapher or the,Clerk." Communications work late in the day had been. reduced due to a_0hange in train schedules and when any such work was required after 6 p.m, it was performed by the Agent-Telegrapher.-;on.overtime': '

    The Organization contends that. the, assignment of the work formerly performed by the Telegrapher-Clerk to the Freight Clerk from Walnut Creek was a violation of, ,the".Agr.eement. .In its submission the Organization relied upon some thirteen ,different rules of the Telegraphers' Agreement. At the hearing before this Board, however reliance was placed chiefly upon Rule 1 (Scope), It is argued that' the work remaining at Avon wheri'the Telegrapher-Clerk position was abolished belonged to the Telegraphers and could not be assigned by Carrier to persons outside the Telegraphers*~Agreement. This position is based upon two propositions:, (1) Along,and e stabli$hed'practice 'at Avon for Telegraphers to perform this works (2) With the,abolition of the Telegrapher-Clerk position Avon tfecam'e a one-man station and all work remaining there belonged to,the Agent,-

    Carrier I denies any. vialatioi~ of the Agreement. It asserts that the work performed by the.Clerk at.IAvon,on a part.time basis following the abolition of the~-Teleg3zapher-Clerk position was entirely


                            . -2

clerical in nature and was the same type of work performed at Avon
 by a Freight Clerk from 1941'to 1948y.and the same type as that per-.
 formed by clerical employes''.elsewhere on this Carrier, and in the
 railroad industry general1y.;.,-It contends that,the.i~ e,is;nothirig.in
 the Agreement nor -any practice .iWhich_preyents...;6krrier·,from abolishing
 a Telegrapher position ·whei~' ,-the,Telegrapher .work·:disappears and, assign.,
 ing the remaining clerical work'to'.blerks orotheis*., It'says that the
 custom and practice in·,the*.industry'as.well aiawards of the National
 Railroad Adjustment Board%sup-port this. position,..,'
 A brief history 6,f;the..a'ssignments -at 'Avon.will be helpful to a consideration of.-the question before the Board. The TelpgrapherClerk position was first "es,ttablished at Avon, in' 1924 and took care of the late afternoon businesslvf,,haridling trair3,6rdersj, preparing work lists for local freight,and' dofng.various. kinds of clerical~,woik as designated by the Agerit4 The. purpose was-to assist the Agent· Telegrapher during peal'.periods:.and,to-.do"required telegraph work when the Agent was abient,. During 1933 to 1935-when business dropped .off the position was;.aliolishedr'. ·It.was ,reiestabliatied and 'abolished at other times according to the:needp of; the service, The, position was re-established iri~.~a~I;.`ari4;;'coptinued' until' dariuary 16,x, T959: During the period when,'.egra~ha,r'~, Clerk ,rrras ,a,si.gned .Carrier operated
                    . ,

two local freight trains' to- meet',the `-requirements 6f ,an Oil ' Company located at Avon. , The'`·Aia~n;: t61,egrdp~ib ,work was; handling train orders and work in eprn5otion.:aith,;the, iqeetg ,of ,these trains: . During
                    r. ,.


the war and the perio;.;fq~7.lo~'i.rg~,:i,4f.~i,~eg. from 1941, to 1948t..oil.
                                        · SGA553

                                        A uicl 1


production and freight work greatly increased, Carrier established an additional position of freight clerk at Avon to help with the increased work load. He did the same kind of work as the Telegrapher. Clerk except that he did not handle train orders or do other telegraphic work. ,
 In June 1958, the afternoon train serving the.0i1 Company
 plant was discontinued and the morning train was rescheduled to
 operate later in the day. This eliminated the meeting of trains and
 Carrier decided that the Agent-Telegrapher could handle all tele
 graphic work during his regular assigned .hours by changing them so
 that he got off at 6 p,m, Since the Freight-.Clerk at Walnut Creek,-,.
 several miles away, had'less than four hrours of clerical work,
 Carrier decided that he could perform the afternoon clerical work at
 Avon. So as of the close of work January 15, .1959i Carrier abolished j
 the Telegrapher-Clerk position at Avon and assigned the Freight-Clerk
 at Walnut Creek to Avon to work some 4 to 5 hours in the afternoons
 performing clerical duties formerly performed by the Telegrapher
 Clerk. The Organization does not contend that he handled any communi.
 cations work. This Clerk continued to do this work until March 14
 1964, when a rearrangement,of local freight trains required train
 orders for movement about 8:30 Poo- In order to handle this situation
 Carrier discontinued the Clerk's position and, re.-established the
 Telegrapher-Clerk's job, `' .

 The precise question at issue in this case has never'been passed upon by the National."Railroad Adjustment Board and none of the

S8 A 553

_, AWd


Awards cited by the parties cover the exact situation here. The language in some of them is persuasive but many of the Awards have little or no relevance .to this case.
 The Scope -Rule is general in character, It designates the employes that are within the Telegraphers' Agreement but does not set forth their duties. It is well-settled that in determining whether the Telegraphers are entitled to particular work reference must be had to custom, tradition and practice on the property, See recent Awards: 10493, 10581, 10604:, 10.918, 10951, 10970 of the Third Division', The Organization has the burden of showing that by custom and practice on the property the work in question has been performed by Telegraphers' to the exclusion of others. Avrard;5719.
 It has failed to'sus.tain this burden.* The work assigned to the Clerk at Walnut Creek was admittedly clerical in character, There 'is no proof in the record of ,a custom or. practice on this property for the Telegraphers to perform this work exclusively, In fact, the evi. dence shows that this type of work was performed.by a Clerk at Avon from 191+1-1948 and is performed by, clerical employes elsewhere on this property.
 It is true that the work was performed at Avon by the Telegrapher-Clerk for many,years prior to 1959.but this.does n6t establish a right to the work.. The,words of Referee Carter in Award 7031 are pertinent,heres !'Where.work may properly be assigned to two or more crafts, an assignment-to-one ,does not have the effect of making .it the exclusive'work ;of'that'craft-.in'the, absence of plain
 >. f~Wd l

 \t ,language indicating such an intent.' Nor is the fact that work at one
      ' point is assigned to one craft for a long period of time of controlling importance when it appears that such work was assigned to different crafts at different points on the property within the scope of the Agreement." In the.case involved in Award 7073, Carrier abolished, one. of two telegraphic positions at a certain station' assigned the remaining telegraphic work to the other telegrapher position (AgentTelegrapher) and distributed the clerical work between two Clerks at the station. This assignment was held by Referee Carter to be entirely proper,

      The only case cited by either party with a fact situation somewhat similar to the present case is Award 6363. There qne of the telegrapher positions was abolished, the hours of the other telegrapher changed so that he could take,care of all train orders and coiamuncation work during his regular shift, and the other duties of the abolished position (clerical and other station work) were assigned to persons outside the Agreement. The,Organization contended that this work . belonged to it since it had been performed by Telegraphers over a period of years. In rejecting the claim Referee McMahon said ."This Board has consistently held in many cases that when a position has been abolished, as here, and the remaining duties sometimes performed by . Telegraphers, are of a clerical nature,' i-6 cannbt be said that such clerical duties belong exclusively to the Telegraphers."

      The Organization has relied upon Award-7409 by Referee McMahon. While, that case does tend to support their contention, we regard, it as

    1 T


                                            S6~ 553 A wd l


inconsistent with his earlier Award 6363, which we consider the better reasoned decision, Furthermore, in Award 7409 the Referee-found an established custom and practice for Telegraphers to perform the work. We can make no such finding here.
 The Organization has argued that with the abolition of the Telegrapher-Clerk position Avon became a one-man station with all the work belonging to 'the Agent, and contends that even clerical work'remaining could not be assigned to persons outside of the Agreement. It has relied upon Awards 6975 and 7590. In our judgment this argument has no merit in the present case. In the first place, the claim is not made on behalf of the Agent for overtime as in Award 7590, In thatcas'e no position had been abolished, The question involved was the Agent's right to overtime work outside his regular assigned hours, In the instant case the work was performed by the clerk during the same hours the Agent~Telegrapher was on duty. Presumably he could not have handled it in addition to his regular duties. No work to which he was entitled was taken from him. Furthermore, we do not consider this a one-man station situation as that term has been used in some Awards. After the Telegrapher-Clerk position was abolished, two persons were assigned to the station--an Agent-Telegrapher on a full shift and a Clerk on a part-time shift. Without passing upon the validity of the one-man station principle, we consider it inapplicable here.
 For the reasons expressed we conclude that the assignment of work by Carrier was entirely within its rights.
 _ _ T

SQL 553


                                FINDINGS: There was no violation of the Agreement. AWARD Claim denied.


                    SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 553


                          Roy R. Ray, Chairman


      ze

      D. A. Bobo, Employe Member L. W. Sloan, Car ier Member


      San Francisco' California ,


-8-