SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0.
553
THE ORDER OF,RAILROAD TELEGRAP9ERS
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY (PACIFIC LINES)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
'Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad
Telegraphers on the Southern Pacific (Pacific Lines), that:
1, The Carrier violates the parties' agreement at
Beaumont, California' when it permits or requires
train service employes, not covered by the Telegraphers' agreement to perform the telephone communication work in connection with reporting (O,S'ing)
trains, making a check of trains and in general
perform telegraphic (telephonic) service customarily
performed by the agent-telegrapher at this station
at a time when he is available, ready and willing
to perform this work,
2. The Carrier shall, because of the violations set
out above' compensate C. D. Casper, agent-telegrapher
at Beaumont, or his successor, for a special call
July 179 19
(2 calls), 22, 23
25
(2 calls) and
August 1
1959
and on each date subsequent thereto
when similar violations of the agreement are per
mitted at this station
as
evidenced by the supple
mental claims by the General Chairman in his letters
of August 13 and 28; September ll and 24; October 2
and 13;,November 2 and December 2
1959,
hereinafter
set forth and on a continuing basis."
OPINION OF THE BOARD: - .
This claim concerns telephone communication by train service
employes from Beaumont to the Dispatcher in Los Angeles as to their
arrival at Beaumont and requests for instructions as to their nextassignment as well as telephone instructions from the Dispatcher to the
i S t3 A 55 3
AW d ~o
Engine Crews concerning that assignment.
Beaumont is the summit of a hill with an elevation of
2500
feet and requires helper engine service. After Carrier installed
CTC through Beaumont, it placed telephone booths in various locations
in Beaumont Yard. When a helper engine crew arrived at Beaumont .
(after finishing an assignment), the Engineer would contact the
Dispatcher (then located at Beaumont) and receive his next assignment
or instructions, including location of the train he was to help. For
example, he would be told to go down to a certain point and help a -
particular train up to Beaumont. Later the Dispatcher's office.was
moved from Beaumont to Los Angeles. Thereafter helper engine crews
used these phones in Beaumont to call the Dispatcher at Los Angeles
reporting their arrival, requesting and receiving farther work
assignments.
On the dates involved in the claims only an Agent-Telegrapher
was stationed at Beaumont (the second and third shift Telegrapher
positions having been abolished in December
1957
and March
1958,
respectively). The Beaumont Agency was closed on September 6, 1960,
S
and the remaining Agent-Telegrapher position abolished.
The telephone conversations which took place petween the,
helper engine crews and the Dispatcher are set forth on pages
31-34,
and
38-55
of the Record. The content of the calls is illustrated by
the following.whieh are typical:
"August
9, 1959 9:34
a.m.
Engineer: This is helper at Beaumont.
What .do you want us to do? - . . . '
Dispatcher: Go back to Loma Linda and help an east
. bound C-block down there in about
20 minutes."
-2-
1
5 6'A 5 53
"August 21,
1959 3:05
a.m.
Engineman: Colton helper cut out at Beaumont at
East Signal.
Dispatcher: You come on down to Rimlon and help No.
3.
He will be there about
6 o'clock."
"August 22,
1959 10:49
p.m.
Engineer: This Sabens helper at Beaumont.
Dispatchers Sabens, go-back to Loma Linda and help
another perishable East
5610;
be at Colton
there about 11:20 a.m."
"August 24,
1959
4:00 P.M.
Engineer: This is Kraft at Beaumont,
Dispatcher: Kraft you are going to help the PNW,
the
699
called out of Indio at
4:15."
The Organization contends that the transmission of this type
of information by persons other than the Telegraphers violated the
Agreement. Carrier replies that these were mere verbal
instructions
in connection with the operation of CTC and that this work does not
belong to the Telegraphers. Carrier argues that there was no occasion
for the Helper Engine Crews to report their arrival because the
Dispatcher at Los Angeles knew by means of the graph on the CTC machine
where the trains were at all times. The Organization says the graph
merely indicates that the particular section of the track is occupied
and that the Dispatcher does not know what engine or train is there.
Several of the conversations seem to indicate that the Dispatcher did
not know the identity of the helper crew. .In view
of
this, we are.not
convinced that it was unnecessary for the-Engineer to report his
arrival at Beaumont, In any event, we consider the instructions
requested by the. Train Crew and given by the Dispatcher to conpern
the control and movement of trains. The Helper Crew needed further
orders and received them., including where to go and what to do,
-3-
' - S6A 553
fwd
10
Carrier says that the verbal instructions from the Dispatcher to the
Helper Crew in CTC territory do not constitute train orders, implying
that train orders must be written. There are Awards of the Third
Division indicating that verbal instructions may amount to train
orders.
6885
and
7628.
But, as we have said,
whether or
not they are
technically train orders they do concern the control and movement of
trains. ,
Carrier has placed great emphasis on the fact that the
communications here were in CTC territory and asserts that the operation.of CTC is by the, Train Dispatchers and that no train orders are
required. It has cited Awards of the Third Division holding that the
work of manning CTC machines does not belong to the Telegraphers.
4452
(Carter),
4768
(Stone) ,,
85-r-r (McCoy), 8660
(Guthrie) and 10303
(Mitchell). With this proposition we are in entire agreement, but
that is not the issue in this case. Whatever may have been the
Organization's position in
the past it does not contend here that the
operation of these machines belongs to the Telegraphers.
What is involved here is not the operation of a mechanical
device which controls signals and switches but whether the, transmission
of the messages in question is work belonging to the Telegraphers. If
it is, the fact that it took place in CTC territory is,immaterial.
Before the advent. of CTC there is no doubt' that communications of the
type involved-in this case were regarded as Telegraphers' work. Many
Awards of the Third Division hold that this type of work was historically and traditionally performed by Telegraphers. Prior-to-the
installation of CTC through the Beaumont area crews on helper engines
-4-
. y S6A 553
received instructions from the Dispatcher through the Beaumont telegraph office as to their next assignment and they filed messages incidental to their.assignments with such office.
Apparently Carrier takes the position that with.the installation of CTC this,type of work somehow was removed from the jurisdiction of the Telegraphers. We are not impressed with the argument
that the installation of CTC and operation of such equipment changed
the kind or character of the work in question or the necessity of
transmission or recording. It is true-that the, operation of'CTC has
diminished and in some instances completely eliminated the need or
necessity for Telegraphers. Where that is the situation the Organization, although it has lost work and positions, has no ground for
complaint. And as has been said above, the Organization does not now
claim the right to operate the CTC boards. But where, as here, it. is
still necessary to send communications like those in this case by means
other than through the use of the CTC the work belongs to the
Telegraphers.
Carrier says that this type of verbal instructions has been
in use for a long period of time at Beaumont and other places without
complaint by the Organization prior to the current claim,, and argues
that the Organization should now be estopped to assert any right to
work. The Organization answers that the reason it did not file complaints earlier was that as long as the CTC was located at Beaumont
the calls from the Engineer to the Dispatcher were within station
limits and the Organization had never been successful with this type
SN 553
t 10
of claim within station limits. But that after the CTC was moved to
Los Angeles this claim was filed. This seems to us a reasonable
explanation for the failure to file formal complaints earlier and
we do not believe the record establishes acquiescence on the Organization's parts Furthermore, since we think that by custom, tradition
and practice the work belongs to the Telegraphers we do not believe
they have lost the right to it by failure to assert it at an earlier
date.
For the reasons set forth above we hold that the work in
volved belonged to Telegraphers and that its performance by.persons
outside the Agreement constituted violation of the Agreement.
FINDING
That Carrier violated the Agreement.
AWARD
That claim is sustained.
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0.
553
Roy. R;,Ray) Char
C~
"O.~ zg~ ~ /~
D. A. Bobo, Employe Member . L. WS Sloan, Ca rier Member
San Francisco, California
November 9, 1964
-6-