. Docket No, 13
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0.
553
THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS .
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY (PACIFIC LINES)
ROY R. RAY, Referee .'
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 Imlay and
Sparksq N9vadaf and Ogden, Utah, when it requires or permits employes not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement
at these station locations to transmit and/or receive messages of record over the telephone.
2. The Carrier shall, because of the violations set out in
Item 19 above, compensate: ,
(a) H. M. Matheny' 3rd Telegrapher-PMO-Clerk Imlay, Nevada,
` 'for one special call for November 20,
1959·
(b) R. W. BroVuzy Relief Wire Chief-Telegrapher-PMO-Clerk,
. Sparks, Nevada, for one special call for November 209
1959.,
(c) R. E. Pechnick9 Relief-Wire-Chief Telegrapher-PMO-Clerk'
Ogdenq Utah) for one special call for November 20,
1959.
3.
The Carrier shall, in addition to the foregoing? for each date
subsequent, to those set forth in Items (a) through (c) above,
on which employes not covered by the parties' agreement at
the station locations set forth in Item 1 of this Statement of
Claimq transmits or receives messages of record over the
telephone in the manner herein described, compensate an available regularly assigned telegrapher at Imlay9 Sparks and Ogden
in accordance with applicable rules."
OPINION OF BOARD:
This claim concerns two separate.incidents, On November,209
1959
the- Roundhouse Foreman at,Imlay' Nevada telephoned the Assistant
A wd
13
Chief Clerk in the Master Mechanic's office in Ogden, Utah and gave,.,
'
him a
report
9n
work performed that days Ise*, that nine cars had - '
been repaired, none left over, and
six pairs of wheels had been
attached. The Organization also alleges that on the save
day a
similar telephone report was made by the Roundhouse Foreman~at Imlay
to'a Clerk at Sparks, Nevada. Carrier denies that this latter call
was made. At any rate the issue involved is the
same,
The-Organization contends that the repair report transmitted
by the Foreman constituted a communication of record and under the
Scope Rule. should have been transmitted only by a Telegrapher, It .
cites many cases which contain general statements concerning the
nature of the work encompassed by the Scope Rule but refers to
no cane with facts similar to that now before the Board,
Carrier says that the telephone conversation in this
claim was incidental to the work performed by the Foreman, and that
the information supplied as to cars trepaired and wheels replaced was'
for use in compiling a statistical report in the Division Office
,and that no separate record was kept of it. Carrier further asserts
that telephone calls of this nature have been handled in this frame
manner direct between Roundhouse Foremen and cleric&1'employ®3 for
many years from numerous stations over the system, ,
.Th®. inforanation supplied by the Roundhouse
this case certainly had no immediate or direct -off
eq
ment of trains, although such
oars
undoubt®dlp,Vers later
used
by
the Railroad
3u
Its operations., . We do not think. $he t~;ephOp,e
,
message can be considered a communication of record as that term has
been used
in
Awards
of the Third Division merely because it gave
some
information which was
destined
for inclusion in s stgtistiesl
report, Our position here finds support in two recent Awards (Third
Division Supplemental) on this property. ,In Award 12615 the telephone messages reported on cars
which needed
repairst the repairs
which had been completed and the location of the cars.- This was
held not to be communications of record. In Award 12618 one of the
claims was based on a telephone conversation in which the Roundhouse
Foreman advised the Dispatcher that a certain car (number given) was
rewheeled and ready to go. The Board said this was not a communication of record and did not relate to movement of trains,
The Organization has presented no proof that in the past
this type of telephone message -has been transmitted exclusively by
Telegraphers, In fact the record indicates the contrary: We
oonsider the claim to be lacking in m6rit,
. - FINDING ''
That Carrier did not violate the Agreement,
AWARD
Claim denied,
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0, 553
. Abooye Memb
ei
San Francisco California
June 28' 1965
Roy
Rd
.ay' Chairman(
. W~.
i~lo ' Carrier
ember