THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS


          ' BOUTHBRN PACIFIC COMPANY (PACIFIC' LINKS)


                          ROY R. RAY, Referee


    STATEMENT OF CLAM


        "Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the Southern Pacific (Pacific Lines)9 that:


                          Claim No.,

                                  1 ..


            1. The Carrier violated the terms of the parties' agreement at Eugene, Oregon when at 2:00 PM. August 4, 1959, it required or permitted a Scale Weigh Clerk an employe not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement at hugene Yard, to

            transmit a message of record over the telephone to the , `

            Agent-Telegrapher at Sutherlin, Oregon. ,


,' 2. The Carrier shall, because of the violation set forth in
 .. Item 1 above, compensate L. E. Hatch, Telegrapher·Clerk'
            Eugdpet Oregon, who was available, ready, and willing to

            perform this work for.one special call.


        .. Claim No. 2


            l: The Carrier violated the terms of the parties' agreement vhen._at--,12t.06 PM., December 2, 1959, it bequired or permitted Ja=.$ett a member of Extra Gang No. 1. an employe not

            ' ,~.%~. overed by the Telegraphers' Agreement at Parran, Nevada, to transmit a message of record over the telephone o a clerioal employe at Ogden, Utah$ also not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement. ,


            2. The Carrier shallt because of the violation set forth in Item 1 abovet compensate J. N. Dockter, 2nd shift TelegrapherClerk-PMOf who was available readyg and'willing to perform this work for one special cads


                                -1-


                                                              r.

0 51 A, 553


      4. 9kWd l a


        . . "Claim No.~, `


            "1s The Carrier violated the terms of the parties' agreement at Hazen and Lovelock, Nevada, when on November 11 and 12, 1959' it required or permitted Extra Gang Foreman Frank Harmer, an employe not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement at Hazen Nevada, to transmit a message of record over the telephone to the Roadmaster at Lovelockt Nevada, also an employe not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement.


            *.2. The Carrier shalls because of the violations set forth in Item 1 above, compensates


                (a) D. A. Keely Agent-Telegrapher, Fernley, Nevada z for one special cal. each date, November 11 and 12t 1957.


                (b) J. K. Browning lst Telegrapher-Clerk Lovelock p Nevada p for one special call each date, NoveUer 11 and 12, 19536


                              C'ILaim No. 4


            1. The Carrier violates the terms of the parties' agreement at Pittsburgh and at Oakland 16th Street, Oaklandq California when it requires or permits employes not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement at these locations to transmit and/or receive messages of record over the telephone.


        21 The Carrier shall l because of the violations set out in Item .

    · · 1 above? compensa4ea


            (a) F. A. Jurrik' regular assigned 3rd Telegrapher-Clerk

            Pittsfrgh' for one special call on each date, October 26:

            21v 22' 26, 27t 28, 29; November 21 39 41 5t date., and 10, 13590.


            (b) C. C. Jolly regular assigned Telegrapher-Clerk Relief

32, for one special call each date, October 23 anti 30 and
 . November 69 1959. '

            (c) Harriett E. Keough, regular assigned 3rd TelegrapherClerk, Oakland 16th Street, for one special call each.date; October 20, 21t 26' 279 28; November 2, 3t 4' 99 and 10., 1,590


            (d) H. F. Glaeser, regular assigned Telegrapher-Clerk, Re= lief 29, for one special call each date, October 22, 24,299 30; November 5 and 6, 1959.


        3. The Carrier shall' in addition to the foregoing,, for each

        date subsequent to those set out in Items (a) through (d) above'

        as reflected by supplemental claims filed by letter dated Dec

        ember 16, 1959' on which parties not covered by the Telegraph

        erg' Agreement at the station locations set out in Item 1 of

        this Statement of Claim' transmitted and/or received messages


                                  -2- J.

                  _ ·._ ~ S ~A

                                                    X53___. .:


    ' ' ck~

                                                      ~a


            "of record over the telephone in the manner herein described, and on date subsequent thereto, compensate the regular assigned telegrrphers listed in Item 2, or their

' successorst in accordance with applicable rules.

                                Claim No, 5'


          3. The Carrier violated the terms of the parties' agreement

          when at 1:1+0 P.M. on August 21, 19599 it, required or per

          mitted Clerk Dorothy Samsel an employe not covered by the

          Telegraphers' Agreement at ~ortlandj Oregon., to transmit a

          message of record over the telephone to Clerk Sutfin also

          an employe not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement at .

          Oakland$ California* _


            2. The Carrier shall, because of the violation set out in Item 1 above, compensate R, H. Bells regular assigned 2nd Wire Chief-Telegrapher Oakland 16th Street, Oaklandf Californiag for one specia~. call."


    OPINION OF BOARD:,


    This case involves five separate and distinct claims each of which charges that employes other than telegraphers used the telephone for the purpose of transmitting messages or information which should have been,transmitted only by persons covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement. The organization takes the position that the messages involved in all the claims were communications essential to the operation of the Railroad and therefore belonged to the telegrapherse It specifically emphasizes that messages need not relate to train movements in order to belong to telegraphers; and says that the Scope Rule also inoludes communications of record and other communications which through tradition, custom and practice have boon performed by tel®grapherse It contends that custom and practice support its position h®ree


                                "3-

Carrier takes the position that in all of the instances involved in these claims the employes were merely using the phone for the purpose of exchanging information relating to their regular assigned duties. It says that the telegraphers have no exclusive right to the use of the telephone and that none of the communications involved fall within the Scope Rulet because they do not relate to the movement of

                                                        trains and that there is no custom or practice on this property fdt i telegraphers to perform this type of work to the exclusion of other employes*

The Scope Rule is general in nature. It lists positions but does not define in specific terms the work covered. Before the advent of the telephone the transmission of messages like those in this case undoubtedly would have been by use of the telegraph. But awards of the Third Division have made it clear that this is not the sole measurement of the telegraphers work. Not all communication work.is reserved to the Telegraphersq nor is the telephone the exclusive instrument of that craft. It now appears well established that work belongs to the Telegraphers if it falls within one of the following categories: (1) relates to the control or movement of trains or safety of passengers, or productsq (2) is a communication of record as.that term has been used in the decisions, or (3) by traditions custom and practice on the property has been performed by telegraphers to the exclusion of other employema Awards 10492' 11812, 12383 and many others. The burden.of proof is' howevert upon the employes and when they rely on custom and practice', they must show not merely that telegraphers customarily perform the
 type of work but that they handle the;,messages to the exclusion of,

                                              ,~d ca


    all others. With these principles in mind we turn to the individual claims,


                            CLAIM N0, 1

A scale weight clerk at Eugeneq Oregon telephoned gross, tare and net weights of three cars to the agent-telegrapher at Sutherlin! Oregon, where the cars originated, Eugene is the weighing point,The Organization says the scale weights were for the purpose of making a waybill and that waybills are a matter of record, Carrier says the main purpose was so that the shippers would know the weight of the barns
 The Organization has relied on two awards of Special Adjustment Board 355 where a clerk gave scale weights on two cars requested by an agent at another station. Claim was sustained in both cases

                                                            ' without any assigned reason, But the question in both bases seems to i have been whether it was a message under Rule 35 of the Agreement which prohibited persons other than telegraphers from sending messagess We do not regard these cases as'persuasive here,

    Carrier relied upon Award 12612 of the Third Division where the clerk telephoned a message requesting release times on three

    ,specified cars and the Agent-Telegrapher gatte the times. That Board said this was not a communication of record and did not control movement of trains or affect safety of passengers or. property, Claim wgs denied*

In our judgment the message as to scale weights did not involve the control or movement of trains0 It was not shove to be a communication of record as that term has been used by the Third Divisions

                                                i

, _, · S6A-5553

Awd J a


The Organization has failed to prove that by custom and practice on this property this type of communication has been performed exclusively by telegraphers. The claim must therefore be rejectede

                        CLAIM N0. 2

A member of Extra Gang No. 1 at Parran' Nevada telephoned the clerk at Ogden, Utah and gave him the gasoline report for Gang No. l,for November 9 to 25. It showed amount on hand at beginning of the period, amount receivedg amount used on highway and on company property and amount on hand at end of period, The organization says that this was a permanent type of record and that the telegrapher at Parran could have transmitted this without any expense to the Company for a call. The Organization cites no cases of a like or similar nature to,support its position.
 Carrier says that the purpose of the report was for the
 computation of taxes due in Nevada. While the report is a recent
 innovations Carrier argues that it is similar to numerous other reports
 such as the labor reports which have long been in use and telephoned by
 the various crews. In this connection it cites Award 12613 on this
 property where a member of an extra gang telephoned the work report
 for his gang for payroll purposese Award 12624 is another case where
 a section foreman. telephoned the clerk in the Roadmaster's office the
 weekly labor report which said "removing weeds 72 hourst Camp 8 hours'
 i .
 janitor 6 hours, balance ordinary track repairs." In both cases the
 Hoard held that these were not communications of record and not
 concerned with the movement of trains* Claid-was denied in each

                          06~

                          a y


                  . y

_ - ~ S~3A 553

~~ol ~ a


instance. The facts in those cases are sufficiently similar to be
 persuasive here, The gasoline report certainly did not deal with the operation of trains and we are not convinced that it was a communication of record. Since there has been no proof that it has been the custom and practice on this property for this type of report to be handled exclusively by telegraphers the claim is without merit,

                            CLAIM NO, 3 ,, ,

The foreman of an extra gang at Hazent Nevada telephoned the Roadmaster's office at Lovelockq Nevada concerning movement of cars from Hazen to Upsal and those to remain at Hazen& Car numbers were
 given. _ .
 The Organization relies upon Award 6693 of the Third Division.'
 In that case a typical message telephoned by the clerk wase "Pick up
 ATSF 211272 Carload of yarn at mill and place ATSF 30559 and DROW 68917
 at Duck Platform for duck loading Saturday P.M." This was held tq be
 a communication of record. and within the Scope Rule.
 - Carrier argues that since the actual pick up of the cars was
 arranged by the Roadmaster at Lovelock by means of a telegram addressed
 ~'to the Train Dispatcher at Ogden, the telephoning by the foreman at Hazen did not violate the Scope Rule. We cannot agree. Carrier made the same argument in the Docket involved in Award 12625 where it said: "Simply a telephone conversation . ._.. . between the Maintenance of Way Foreman at Lakeside and Roadmaster's Clerk at Ogden whereby! the former advised the latter to arrange for certain passenger trains to make unscheduled stops at Lakeside on certain dates to entrain and detrain passengers,
                                                    e


                              ~7_ ,, .i, G

(employes) and no provision of the Telegraphers° Agreement allocates
 or reserves these duties to telegraphers, but on the contraryt they are
 duties of the employes that performed same." This reasoning was rejected
 by the Boards which held the message to be "clearly a communication of
 record"q relying upon Award 8663, Awards 12613 and 12615 cited by
 Carrier are not in point here.
 _ ,. We are of the opinion that the message telephoned in this
 case was a communication of record and belongs to the telegraphers
 under the principles announced above. The claim must be sustained.

                          CLAIM N0. 4

On various days in October and November 19599a car' clerk at Pittsburg telephoned to a clerk in the Car Distributorls,office at Oakland-16th St. giving car information such ass cars loaded' nature. of contents' number of cars ordered and number on hand. 'Illustrative of the type of information given is shown by the call of November 2' 19591

          "Loaded sulphate 3s brick none, Shell chemical mty BH box on hand 71 order 1. Mty 50 ft. boxes on hand 3. Shell chemical going to use covered

          hopper".'

The organization insists that this type of telephone conversation communication belongs to telegrapherst but it has referred to no specific authority supporting its position.
 ' Carrier, on the other hand, says that this type of communication has been made by clerks on, this property for some forty years. This contention is supported by,a mass of evidence at pages 141.173 of

· , . _ __ S6~ 55 3


      ·the,record and by Decision #18 of Special Board of Adjustment, dated

      October 12s 1931· While the Board members were equally divided and no


      ma~orit7 decision was rendered' the facts as stated by the Board confirm


      Carrier's contention as to past practice.

              Carrier's position is also supported by Award 11805 of the, ,

      Third Division involving.a fact situation like that in the present case,

      A yard clerk at Netherlands, Kentucky telephoned the Car Distributor, at

      Huntington, West Virginia and gave him s a car situation report which was

      as follows: "5 loads out' 4 empties int 4 to be cleanedt 5 ordered

      yesterday". In answer to Petitioner's argument that the communications

      were messages of record and restricted to telegraphers the Board rep11®ds

      "These messages did not affect the operation of trains nor did they

      affect the safety of persons or property which by their very nature

      should be made of record", The claim was denied because Petitioner

      failed to show that the work in question had been by custom and practice

      performed exclusively by telegrapherse

      In view of Award 11805 and Carrier's,strong showing that clerks have performed this work for many years, it is clear that there is no basis for holding that the work comes within the Scope Rule. The claim must, therefore' be deniede


                . CLAIM NO. 5. . . . . ..

      A clerk in the Portland$ Oregon office telephoned, the Chief Clerk in Oakland, California office requesting that;a previous mails. gram request for,a limousine to meet a particular passenger be caaceled. '


                                  .9r

                                  56A 553

                                  Aw4 /.,4


The Organization argues that since this was a service to a

 passenger the transmission of the message should be made only by a ,

                                                        telegrapher# Carrier says this was merely a cancellation of what i would have been a courtesy to a passenger and that there was no occasion to use a telegram.

The only case with facts at all similar to that before us. is Award 1270. There a clerks by telephones transmitted a. message' from the conductor of a passenger train to the Station Master at Washington D.C. It stated the number of passengers bound for Trantont. N.J. and asked that a Red Cap meet the train. The Hoard held this was not a message of record nor did the conversation affect the movement of a train. Petitioner offered no proof of a practice and custom showing

the disputed work to have been performed exclusively by telegraphers.

The claim was denied. .
 We are convinced that the present claim is analogous to 1270)t, The conversation here cannot be.eonsideTed a communication of record. It certainly did not affect the operation 'of trains. The Organization has no proof of an exclusive past practice for telegraphers to handle such messages. The claim is without merit* y

                        FINDING , .

          The Agreement was violated as to Claim l3.'''

          There was no violation in Claims l, 2; 4' St

                                              ,


                          ` A i


                ' -10m

                                                        I


                                                    .

D. A. Bobo,, Employe Member

 San Franciscoq California June 28, 1965'

 AWARD

 Clam No. 3 is sustained. Claims 11 29 4 and 5 are denied. ,

 SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 553

 Roy R. Rays Chairm

 L* W. Sloan~ Carrier Mem er