sPEctAL 130ARD oF aMSTMENT No. 5,3 THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY (PACIFIC LINES)

 ROY R. RAYS Referee
' STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

 "Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad
 Telegraphers on the,,Southern Pacific (Pacific Lines),'thats

 "CLAIM N0. 1
Award No. 14 Dooket No. h+l"











(d) H. H. Lbngoor' 2nd shift Telegrapher-Clerk
 Mesa, Arizona, for one special call March i6'
 1959·
 "(e) G. A. Gilliamo 2nd shift Wire Chief, "MC!I*oenixy,
 Arizona for one special call March 269 19~:
















(n) G. Townies 2nd PMO' "UN°' Tucson, Arizonat for

 one special call April 9, 1959'.






A X53
 p d I y
 3

 °°(r) A senior idle extra telegrapher a day's pay at.
 the rate of 'the 2nd shift Telegrapher-Clerk's
 position Tolleson,,Arizona, or K. A. West an
 extra telegrapher assigned to the 3rd shift
 Telegrapher-Clerk's position at Phoenix Yard
 a day°s pay at the time and one-half rate
 for April 17, 1959·




' forth in Item 1 of this Statement of Claim transmit ,
 or receive messages of record over the telephone in '
 the manner herein described, and as evidenced by
 Claim No. 2 0£ this submission, compensate the '
 Claimants as set forth in Item 2 of this Statement
 o£ Claim and/or their successors in accordance with
 the call' overtime and basic day rules of the agreement.



following Claimants as hereinafter set forth:





date Mav 1 and 7. 1959.. '
 Se) A 553 )qwd t 4l P0., 14





              . , 51

                    7, 12, 13, 19 and 25, 1959·

        ' , (f) J. T. Wells, Phoenix Yard-Tovera Relief Telegrapher-

                    Clerk-Agent, for one special call each date May 6

            ' , and 13, 1959·

            _- (g) A senior idle extra telegrapher, .or R. H. Cottony. ,

                    relief position at Rillito, eight (8) hours at

                    the minimum Division rate for May 6, 1959·' .'


                    (kt) E. D. Gannon, third Telegrapher-Clerk, I'VE" Tucson, Arizona, one special call for May 7, 1959· .


                    (i) A. R. Judd , Relief Position ~, Casa Grande one special call each day May ly and 21, 195.


                    (J) J. H. Mayo, Relief Position, Coolidge-Casa Grande,, Arizona, for one special call May 7, 1959·


                    (k) G. A. Gilliam, 2nd Wire Chief "MC" Phoenix, Arizona, for one special call each date May 7, 8, 15, 1959 and four (4) special calls May 21, 1959.


' (1) H. J. Edmonds, 2nd Wire Chief "UN°' Tucson, Arizona
 for one special call May 7, 1959.
 (m) R. J. Terrell, 2nd Telegrapher-Clerk, Casa Grand®'
 Arizona, for one special call May 7, 19" and
 · two (2) special calls May 21, 1959.
 ' (n) G. V. Fimbres, Relief Manager-Wire Chief "UN"'
 Tucson, Arizona, for one special call eaoh.date
                    May .8 and 12, 1959.


        `~ (o) W. R. Guymon Phoenix Yard-Teinpe Relief position

        r for one special call each date, May 8'and 21;. 1959

                                                            :


                  (p) E. Little, PMO "UN" Tucson, Arizona for one

                  special -call May 12, 1959·

                  q) H, Rgph 01959. Mesa, Arizona'.

                  for one s.

          y ;, Pecial call May l2s

          . (r) M. J. Barringer, 3rd Telegrapher-Clerk, Phoenix

          w Yard Office, Phoenix, Arizona, for one special

          call May~25, 1959·

          (s) H. L. Games, 2nd T®legrapher-C1®rk, Picacho,

. _ s.6A 353

· '


                          "CLAIM N0. 3


      "l. The Carrier violates the terms of an Agreement between

      the parties hereto at Bakersfield9 California when it

      permits or requires employes in the Chief Train

      Dispatcher's office, and the Car Distributor's offices

      not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement to receive.

      over the telephone messages of record transmitted by .

      the Agent-Telegrapher at Monolith' California.

      "2o The Carrier shall' because of the violations set out

      in Item 1 of this Statement of Claim compensate Jack

      Panick, regularly assigned 1st shift Telegrapher

      PMO-Clerk, Bakersfieldg for 2 special calls for each

      date March 24' 259 269 27, and 31; April 1, 29 3' 7

      8 99 109 13 and 149 19599 and L. E. Scott, Relief

      Wire Chief Telegrapher, Bakersfieldq one special call

      each date March 30 and April 6y 1959.

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

      each date subsequent to those set out above on which

      employes not covered by the agreement received

      messages of record over the telephone in the manner

      hereinabove described compensate the Claimants set

      forth in Item 2 of this Statement of Claims and/or

      · their successors in accordance with the call or over

      time provisions of the agreement.

      "CLAIM N0. 4


          "l. The Carrier violated the terms of an agreement between

          the parties hereto at Indio' California when on

          August 30, 1959 and February l; 1960 it required or

          permitted Engine Crew Dispatchers an employe not

          covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement, to transmit

          a message of record to a Telegrapher-Clerk at'Niland'

          California.

          "2. The Carrier shall, because of the violation set forth

          in Item 1 of this Statement of Claim compensate

          · L. Rosenfeld' regularly assigned Relief Wire Chief

          Telegrapher-Clerk-PMO "DO" Telegraph Office, Indio'

          for one special call on each date.


"*1. The barrier violates-the terms of an agreement between
 the parties hereto at Phoenix? Casa Grandee Tucson
 and Coolidge y Arizona when on July 91 10 August 9
 139 19 and 22, 1959 It permitted or required
 employes not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement
 to transmit and/or receive messages of record over
 the telephone.

S6A 55 3

Qdwd t y


    n2. The Carrier shall] because of the violations set out in Item 1 of this Statement of Claim compensate the following Claimants as hereinafter set forth:


        (a) G. A. Gilllam,-3rd Wire Chief "MC" Phoenix'' Arizonag for one special call July 9' 1959.


        (b) R. E. Taylor, 2nd Telegrapher-Clerk, Casa Grande' Arizona, for one special call July 91 1959. '


      (c) for 9'S9Tucson9,Arizona


        ,(d) H. J. Edmonds, 2nd Wire Chief "UN" Tuesonq Arizona, for one three (3) hour Sunday call August 9 and one special call August 13, 1959. .


        (e) J. F. Wells, 2nd Telegrapher-Clerks Phoenix Yard, Phoenix, Arizona for one special call August 13y 1959.


      (f) F. M. Cummins, 2nd Telegrapher-Clerk 'Coolidge9 1,

      Arizona for one special call August ~.3s 1959·


        (g) M. J. Barringer 3rd Telegrapher-Clerk' Phoenix Yard, Phoenix, Irizona for one special call August 199 1959.


        (h) Extra Telegrapher H. J. Winters assigned Phoenix Yard-Tempe Relief Positions one special call for August 22, 1959·


"*NOTEs Claim No. 5 supplements Claims i and 2.

 " CLAIM N0. 6
    "3,. The Carrier violated the terms of an agreement between the parties hereto when on January lay 1960'' it permitted or required an employe not covered by


the Telegraphers' Agreement at Hazen' Nevada' to transmit messages of record over the telephone to
 another such employe at Ogden? Utah. , .

 's2. The Carrier shall, because of the violation set out,
 ' in Item 1 of this Statement of Claim oompeusate the

 following claimants as hereinafter-set forth:

    (a) GT..R..Godwinj Agent-Telegraphers Hazen, for one' special call January 17' 1960.


    (b) L: P. Chamberlin, lst Telegrapher-PHO-Clerks . Ogden9 Utah, for one special call for January l7p 1960®"

OPINION 0f BOARDs .

 This case includes six separate claims including some 66 different telephone conversations wherein employes other than teled graphers transmitted certain messages) reports or information to other employes of Carrier. The Organization contends that all of

 the messages constituted communications of record and/or dealt with operation or movement of trains and their transmission by persons other than telegraphers violated the agreement. Carrier replies that all of the calls inv6lved merely the'exchange of information between ®mployes iri the regular performance of their assigned duties in accordance with the regular practice on the property. It says they were not communications of record n6r did they concern

 movement of trains.

 In Award No.,12 we stated that communication work belongs

 to telegraphers if it falls within any one of three categories: (1) relates to the control or movement of trains or safety of passengers or products; (2) is a communication of record as that term has been used in the decisions, or (3) by tradition, custom

 and practice on the property has been performed by telegraphers to the exclusion of other employes. With reference to most of the claims in this case the Organization has produced no substantial evidence of an exclusive custom and practice on the property. In passing on the merit of the many claims and sub-claims w®.'hixl;tlS®r~ fore' be concerned primarily with the first two criteria, At the - hearing the sub-claims were numbered for identification. In many, instances there is a message and a reply, hence the use of two

 numbers.
 ' 55 3
 9(wd 1,q
' CLAIM N0. 1
 Sub-Claim 1 and 2: The message stated that a certain waybill should
 'have been prepaid instead of collect. The reply said a prepay would
 be sent, This is certainly not a communication of record nor does
 it deal directly with the movement of trains. It must therefore be'
 denied. The nearest award we can find to this fact situation is
 113431 which rejected a claim based on a message concerning the
 tracing of a waybill.
 Sub-Claim 3 and 4: .The message here stated that a particular trailer
 had no markings and no bill. The reply gave consignee's name and
 stated that the bill would be mailed. We do not believe this was
 . a communication of record of directly affected the movement of trainsa
 It isq thereforet rejected.
 Sub-Claims 5 and 6: The clerk here requested the weights on a par
 ticular car (giving its number and consignee) and the reply gave
 the weights. This was not a,communication of record. See Award
 12 (Claim 1) of this Board and Award 11730 (Claims 11 and 14). The
 claim is without merit.
 Sub-Claim 7: This call from the Signal Supervisor to the Signal
 Maintainer, that a,certain train had reported the glass broken in a
 particular signal... This is not a communication of record nor does ,
 it directly affect the control or movement of trains. In Award
 10525 (Claims 21, 22 and 23) where the signal,was reported out of
 order the claim,was.denied. See also denial Award 12609 (Claim 1) .
 where the message was "the light is out in Signal Light Wellton'
 Signal Maintainer repair it." We think the present claim is with ..
 out merit.
 55 3 y

 Sub-Claim 8 and 9s Grindgr Operator requested permission to remove his trailer from Serape to Tempe the following day. He was told to call the shop in Tucson, to see if equipment necessary was available* This is certainly not a communication of record nor does it directly concern the movement of trains. Award 10525 (Claim 8) rejected a claim based on a similar request. We reject the present claim. Sub-Claim 10s The message for delivery to Baggageman on a certain train, concerned two corpses which were destined for Chicago. The Organization says it affected the flow of transportation. That is not enough. It must directly affect the operation of trains or be a communication of record. Here it was neither. A well reasoned
 opinion supporting this position is Award 5660. Another denial'
 award on the same facts is 10525 (Claim la(5)). The claim is with
 out merit.
 Sub-Claim 11s The message reads "The car you asked about left
 Cheyenne in the afternoon of March 30 and will take about six days
 to get to you." This is a reply to a car tracer message and as such .
 falls in the category of "communication of record". The reasoning
 of Referee Ables in Award 10767 is persuasive. We take note of
 the denial of a similar claim in Award 11730- cited by Carrier;
 but point out that"no reason was assigned and we consider that
 decision unsound. The claim is sustained. '
 Sub-Claims 12 and 13s These two calls were made by an Engineer and
 Conductor requesting that they be relieved. These are not communica
 tions of record nor do they directly affect the movement 'of trains.
 They concern personnel assignments. Awards denying such claims are '
 6330 and 12620 (Claim 1). The claims are rejected.

                          -9- r

                                        A ~ 553 - fwd ~ y


Sub-Claim 141 This call advised the Agent that a certain train would have a.corpse to unload. For the same reasons expressed above under' _ ' Sub-Claim 10 the claim is denied.
 ub-Claim 15: The call here was from the Trainmaster at Phoenix to the Conductor of the East Drag instructing him to set out hog cars) at Tempe to be bedded' leave the 40 foot cars at Tovrea for cattle loadingt pick up 4 cars at Tovrea and load ten cars of sheep at Serape. Beyond any question this message relates to the operation and movement of trains. It is also the kind of message that would be made.of record. It clearly belongs to telegraphers. The claim is sustained.' Sub-Claim 161 Inquiry by clerk as to what the Agent had found out about demurrage. This in no way relates to the movement of trains. It cannot possibly 9e considered a message of record. It is merely an inquiry concerning a financial obligation. The claim has no
 merit.,
 Sub-Claim 17s The message was "ATSF 13858 plaster board from Plaster
 City, California 4th to.0'Ma11ey,Lumber,Co. Casa Grande out Yuma
 on TXM last night be in Casa Grande today!'. For the reasons stated
 in Sub-Claim 11 we consider this to be a communication of record and
 sustain the claim.
 Sub-Claim 18 and 191 Inquiry by Section Foreman of Roadmaster's
 Clerk as to whether or not certain cars should be sanded; reply to
 sand cars`and report numbers. This is not a communication of
 record nor does it affect movement of trains.' The claim has no
 merit.
 Sub-Claim 20 and 21s Request by one clerk for assistance from another
 in collecting past due t':Clls owed by a patron. This concerned a
 fiscal matter. It did mot affect movement of trains. It is not the'

 r
 -10-
      s , SBA553-~-wd ~y.


          type of communication of which a record could be made. The claim,is denied. Sub-Claim 22 and 233 Request made by Foreman of Road Gang to Clerk to have'Building Department make portable toilet !`or his gang. Reply, that it would be made. This cannot qualify as a message affecting the movement of trains. It surely is not the type of message which would 'be made of record. The claim is without merit. Sub-Claim 24 and 253 In this call an engineman requested the crew" dispatcher to give him a lay-off for the day and the request was granted with the statement that he would be called the next day. This merely concerned a personnel.assignment and had nothing to do with train movements. It is not a communication of record. See Sub-Claims 13 and 14 and awards cited there. The claim is rejected, . Sub-Claim 26 and 273 Inquiry as to whether Agent was short on a tobacco shipment. This message concerned the Traffic Department; it had nothing to do with train movements and cannot be considered a communication of record. The claim is denied. Sub-Claim 28 and 293 Inquiry by clerk as to why telephone bill for particular month had not been received. This concerned a fiscal matter and has nothing to do with train movements. It surely would not be made of record. The claim is lacking in merit. Sub-Claim-303 Request to have a member of B & B Gang ll.call the B & B Office when he got off duty. On its fact this message does not affect train movements? and certainly is not a communication of record. It, is7 therefore, rejected. . Sub-Claim 313 The message for the conductor and engineer of a particular train was: "~'De not go beyond 23rd Avenue Phoenix without calling Yardmaster a,,pcount yard blocked."p This definitely concerned


' t
                                        ~Y3 ~ 55 3-,t y


the control and movement of trains and is the kind of communication, which belongs 'to telegraphers. We do not consider Award 9318 cited) by Carrier to be in point. The.clsim is sustained. i

 Sub-C~&im 3 and 331 The Clerk at Phoenix asked the Clerk at
                                                        F

Casa Grande to give him the time two specified (by number) cars arrived, postal notice mailed and bill of lading surrendered. The reply gave time of arrival and surrender of bill of lading but said no notice mailed because cars on industry spot. This does, not relate to or control movement of trains. It was not a oommunication of record. 'It is similar to the message in Award 12612. The r claim is denied. Sub-Claim _4s This conversation was between the Cashier in Phoenix and the Agent at Coolidge and concerned a C.O.D. draft of the, Carrier to a customer. It dealt with a financial matter and in no way related to train movements. It was apparently in reply to a question about the draft and was not a communication of record. The claim has no merit. , Sub-Claim 35s A report to the Signal Office by a Signal Maintainer that he had checked out a signal and found it O.K. although it had been reported bad. This claim is similar to that in*Sub-Claim above and is rejected for the same reasons.` Sub-Claim 36a The B & B Clerk asked the Agent to have a certain member of Gang 11 call him at Tucson. This is-the same situation as in Sub-Claim 39 above and is rejected for the same reasons.
 Sub-Claim 37s Conductor advised Dispatcher that Brakeman had'
 received an injury While switching and did not feel like continuing
 the trip. He requested that while they were having lunch at Chandler

                          -12

    . . :~ 5~d ~J4


        another brakeman be sent to replace the injured man. This did not affect the movement of trainsg and was not a communication of record. It was a personnel matter. The claim is rejected. '

        Sub-Claim 38 s The information given by the clerk in Phoenix to the Agent in Tovrea was "Santa Fe just released PRR603088 from Olin

        ' , Mathieson for Ripley, Calif. via AT&SF at Phoenix." This did not directly affect the movement of trains and we do not consider it a .I communication of record. We are unable to distinguish the message from that in Award 12612. The claim is denied.


' CLAIM N0. 2
        Sub-Claim 1 and 2s This conversation between Claims Clerk and an

        agent related complaint from shipper concerning damage to shipment

` and why inspection had not been made. This did not concern movement
        of trains and was not a communication of record. The claim is with

        out merit.

        Snub-Claim 3 and ifs The call concerned an overdue freight bill, and

        freight clerk asked agent why the customer had not paid it.. This

        has nothing to do with train movements and is obviously not,a

        communication of record. The claim is denied.

        9~ub-Claim .s The Agent at Coolidge requested the Chief Clerk at


                                                              Phoenix Yard to send him six box cars of a certain size and type byi t the next day. This did not directly relate to the movement of trains

        nor was it a communication of record. The Organization has failed to show that this type of message has been cudtomarily handled ex- i. elusively by telegraphers. The claim is therefore rejected. See Award 12705. . Sub-Claim--6 and 7: The conversation related to an error on h demurrage bill which the caller wished to correct. This concerned

                  . -13? ` ~"

I ; : ~ S.r~ b53- ~w~ I y -

 a financial matters had nothing to do with train movements and was ' clearly not a communication of record. The claim has no merit.

      Sub-Clailn 8 and 92 The call from the clerk concerned the tracing I

      of a particular shipment and inquiredwhether the Agent had, it at

      his ptation. We think this was a communication of record. We are

· ,unable to distinguish it from the tracing of a car and in accordance
      with the position taken in Sub-Claim 11 of Claim '1 we sustain the

      'i claim.

' Sub-Claim 10 and 112 The Conductor asked the Trainmaster's Clerk
      I what to do with a car of-.beer for Chandler and a car of lard for Tempe. The reply told him to set them out at the two places if it would not cause too much delay; otherwise to bring them to Phoenix#'!. ' These were clearly instructions concerning the movement of trains

      and in our judgment belonged to the Telegraphers. Note Award 6693-

' i,
      The claim is sustained. . '

      Sub-Claim 12 and 132 Clerk inquired of Agent about a particular

      car seal. Reply was that the'seal was not applied at the Agent's

                                                            I.

      station. We do not consider this a communication of record and it did not affect the movement of trains. The claim is denied.. Sub-Claim 14: This was a request for a certain type of cars to

                                                          .-


be spotted by a certain date for loading onions. The situation
 here is different from that in Award 8130 cited by the Organization'
 where the,\instructions were given to the conductor. For the reasond -
 expressed in Sub-Claim 5 and 61 aboveg it is rejected.
 Sub-Claim 15 and 16s This is another car.tracing message. It.
 inquired about a certain car' giving origin, routing and consignee.,
 For the reasons. stated in Sub-Claim 11 of, Claim 1 we hold that it
 was a communication of record. The cle.im is sustained. ;' .

 . · 44"
                                  . . .. - '


~l~lIUI11~111A11111~111~1·
                                          "A963-AWd ty


Sub-Claims 17-22: The three telephone conversations involved here relate to the same transaction and were made on the same day. On, the first call the Clerk at Tucson stated that a car load of wheat .

 had burned the day before at Casa Grande and asked the Agent at

 Coolidge for information as to shipper and consignee. This was.;

                                                      t

given by the.Agentfrom the waybill. The second call from the Car Department at Tucson inquired if the car came to Coolidge empty from Phoenix 'br Tucson. The third call was from the Clerk at
 Phoenix to the Clerk at Casa Grande inquiring about the status of'
 the cai and whether it was ready to move. The reply was that it
 would be rewheeled that night and get out after midnight. We
 believe that these messages related to the movement of trains and/o$
 i
 the safety of 'products. They are the kind of messages that would
 normally be made of record. Neither of the Awards cited by Carrier,
 (11343 and 11930 Sub-Claim 9) is the point here. The facts are
 entirely different. We consider these claims meritorious and they
 are sustained, 4
 Sub-Claim 23 and 24: This was an inquiry as to disposition of certain.
 grain cars which could not be used at Coolidge. The reply by the
 Car Distributor was to forward them to Casa Grande for loading. 'This
 did not concern train movements. It was not a communication of
 record. There is no showing that Telegraphers have handled this
 type of communication exclusively in the pa®t.,'The claim is rejected.'
 Sub-Claim 25 and 26: The call from the Traoin" Clerk at Phoenix on
 May 8th inquired about '14 cartons oonsigned,Pioaoho School billed
 April 21st." stating that the shipment had not arrived, and asked if
 i
 it was on hand at .Coolidge. For the reasons stated above under Sub-6
 Claim 8 and 9 we consider this a communication of record and1,sustain

 the claim.'
 s15.4 s5a-OWd I y

 Sub-Claim 27 and 281v The Clerk in Phoenix aske3 the Agent in Casa Grande "What train and time did that partially burned car of wheat move from Casa Grande on?" The reply, "Car was pinked up by X6284 West APES at 8:19 P·M·" We think these were communications of record and had to do with the operation of trains. We do not consider this claim distinguishable, from Award 12621. The claim is sustained. Sub-Claim 29 and 30s The caller requested 500 car seals and the reply asked for a requisition. This is not a communication'of record i nor does it relate., to the movement of trains. It is, therefore
                                                      i

without merit and is`rejected. Sub-Claim 31 and 3,2s The Agent here asked the Car-Distributor what to do with certain stock on hand. H® was told to hold them for a day and ifwot used then to forward to Tucson. This was not a communication of record and did not deal with the movement of trains. ' , We distinguish this from Sub-Claim ZO and 11 above where the instruc-

 tions were issued to the Conductor. The olainl 3s denied. Sub-Claim 33. 34 and 35s This was a call from a fireman at Mesa requesting permission from Dispatoherpat Tucson lto deadhead on a certain train. It related to personnel .matters and had nothing to do with train movement. It was not a message of record. The claim

 is without merit.

 Sub-Claim 36 and 37s Inquiry by Clerk at Phoenix of Agent at Casa
 Grande as to why s particular oar had left the latter,station,with
 out being fully loaded and on whose authority~oar moved. We think',
 this was a communication of record and related to.the movement of I,

 trains. The claim is sustained.

 Sub-Claim 38 and 391 Engineering Department told Agent that it , planned to retire a spur track and inquired what changes in operation
Mm
                                            ~~. 553- s4~.~d ~i`(


    of the customer's business made the spur no longer useful. Reply was that Feed Company which leased it was out of business. This did not relate to the movement of trains and was not a message of record. The claim is denied. Sub-Claim 40s Clerk at Phoenix told Agent at Coolidge what to do with a certain car when it was empty. This was not a message of record nor did it deal with the operation of trains. Like Sub-Claim 31 and 32 above it is lacking in merit. Sub-Claim 41= Engineer had Agent at Coolidge call the Roundhouse Foreman at Phoenix and told him to meet Train No. 1 at Phoenix with '

. i
    pipefitter and machine since he had engine trouble. This certainly'


    i.

    concerns the operation and movement of trains and is the type of

    message belonging to Telegraphers. The claim is sustained. f


                                                          i

    Sub-Claim 42. 43and 44: A telephone conversation between car dis

    tributor at Tucson and'Agent at Casa Grande concerning the car situai

    tion at the latter station, including cars on hand and the needs ofl

    local customers. This information does not affect the operation

    of trains, and was not the,type o$' message which by its nature

    ,would be made of record. Carriers evidence shows that for many years this type of communication has been made by olerke. The facts in this Claim are like those in Claim 4 of Award 12. For the reasons ,,expressed there and in Award 11805 the claim is denied. Sub-Claim-45 and 1+6: This was conversation between Clerk at Phoenix and Clerk at Casa Grande about a past due bill of,a"customer. It has no connection with train movements and is not, the type Of message which would be recorded. See Sub-Claim 3 and 4 above. The' claim has no merit. ,


                              -17-

s.13~ 553° sdwd 1 ~

 Sub-Claim 56S A member of Communications Gang 3 called San Francisco to advise that wire removal from Tucson to Picacho would be completed that day and that the gang would move to Casa Grande the next day. This does riot directly affect train movements. It is a labor report. The Organization has no case holding that this type of report is a communication of record. Awards 12613 and .12624 hold that these labor reports are not messages of record. See also Award 12118. The record shows that it has long been the practice on this property for such reports to be telephoned by the crews. See Award 12, Claim 2 of this Board. The claim is denied. Sub-Claim 57 and 58s Inquiry about a COD draft issued by Case Grande clerk to Culpepper Motors at Phoenix. This concerns a financial matter. It does not affect the operation of trains and is not a record communication. The claim is,without merit. i Sub-Claim 59a The clerk at Casa Grande said: "Looking for car amonia consigned Casa Grande Warehouse Company. Will it be in on PXM tomorrow from Los Angeles? .Have no car number on this shipment. Please advise." This is another car tracing situation. For the ',i reasons expressed in Claim 1 (Su~-Claim 11)'and in Sub-Claim 15 and 16 above we consider this a communication of record. The claim is. sustained. Sub-Claim 60a The instruction from the Chief Train Dispatcher wae: 'oH J. clearing BO 9129 oversized Id for movement to Hayden in ;error. Phoenix hold this car until authority to move HJ 83". We are satisfied that this communication related to the control and movement of trains and is the kind of communication work belonging to telegraphers. The claim is sustained.

                            `19- a .,

        ~~5'a~3' Cwt

        Sub-Claim 47 and A

        Inquiry about the correctness of a demurrage bill. Reply

        was that it was and had been paid without protest. It does not'

        relate to train movements and is not a message of record. See

        Sub-Claim 6 and 7 above and Claim 1 (Sub-Claim 16). The claim is

        denied,

        Sub-Claim 49 and 508 Inquiry of Agent as to number of cars of

        onions shipped previous day and request to resend the file J report. .

        Reply gave number of cars shipped. The conversation did not affect

        the movement of trains and is not a communication of record. For

        the same reasons we gave in Award 12t Claim 4 of this Board the ".

        olaim.is denied. See Sub-Claim 429 43 and 44 above and Award 11805.

        Sub-Claim 51 and 52s This call. from the Clerk at Phoenix to the Agent,

        at Eloy was for, the .purpose of tracing a shipment of three cartons 'i,

        consigned to Pinal Housing Authority at gloy. We consider this a

        communication of record. See Sub-Claims 8 and 9; and25 and 26

                                                        i

        above. The claim is sustained. ,

        Sub-Claim 538 The,eall from the Freight Agent's Office in Phoenix

        to Agent at Eloy requested him to advise Santa Cruz Farms of the

        new rates for onions. This is a matter commonly handled by the j

        Traffic Department with clerks and agents:? It does not relate to

        train movements and is not a record communication. The claim is

        denied, ,

        Sub-Claim `54 and 558 Another inquiry about demurrage bill., This

        time clerk wanted to know if consignee was liable`.for demurrage on

        a car he did not know was on his spurJtrack because it was used by

        Carrier for switching. This did 'not affect train movements and is


        I n6t a message of record. See Sub-Claims 6 and 7; and 47 and,48

        above. The claim is without merit. "


                                  -18- , .. a


... . _ _ _ _ . :. . -. . , . ' . , .,~---,-~ Rte . ~.».:
        .


                          CLAIM N0. 3


    The sixteen telephone calls in this claim were made by the, Agent at'Monollth to the Car Distributor at Bakersfield on dates between March 24 .and April 13t 1959. Each gave a car situation report including the number of empty cars on hand, number billed$ number without bills, and the tonnage of east and west cars.

    The Organization says that this information is furnished by the Car Distributor to the Dispatcher and he uses it to notify eastll and west trains to pick up cars at the particular station and to know in advance the tonnage in and out of,the station. It contends! that under the provisions of the Scope Rule this type of communica-

    tion belongs to'the Telegraphers. -

    The Carrier's position is that the work in question is note encompassed by the Scope Rule - that in fact the provisions of the

    Rule clearly indicate the contrary. It points out that the Scope

, i
    Rule was amended in 1925 to include "oar distributors if required to telegraph in the performance of their duties", and this terminology; has been carried forward to the present date. i

    We are convinced that barriers position is correct. ,The Scope Mule lists "telegraphers" and "telephone operators" and then


    distinguishes between the two. In this context the statement that

    w

    car distributors are covered only when required to use the telegraph

    in performance of their duties can mean but on ® thing, i.,e.'that

    car distributors using the telephone in the performance of their

    normal duties are not covered. The Record shown beyond question

    that car distributors have been using the telephone for these car


                              -20-

                                            553 -


reports for approximately forty years or more (see especially pages 151-154 and 268$ 269). In our judgment the Organization has presented, no evidence or~authority to support its position. We hold
 that the Scope Rule does not cover this type of work by oar distributors and the claim is therefore, rejected. See Awards 8658 and 11805.

                                                      CLAIM N0. 4 i

The crew dispatcher at Indio by telephone gave the telegrapher at Niland the following message for Fireman Ingram on work train which ties up there: "You are relieved and are ,to return to Indio on first transportation. Will send another fireman to Niland on No. 1+0.11- The message dealt with a personnel assignment and a I displacement. It did not concern the movement of trains or the safety of passengers on property. It was not a message of record. Award 12620 (Claim 1) denying a similar claim is persuasive. See also Award 6330· The Organization has no evidence that this kind of message has in the past been handled exclusively by telegraphers. The claim is rejected.

 CLAIM N0.' 5 1
 Sub-Claim is By telephone the clerk at Phoenix gave the clerk at, I
                                    n


Casa Grande a freight rate which had been requested. This'type of
 communication between the traffic department and the clerks is one
                                        ' I

of long standing on this property. It has nothing to do with the
 movement of trains and would certainly not be tmade,of record. See
 Sub-Claim 53 of Claim 2 and Award 11730 (12). The claim has no
 merit.
 Sub-Claim 2: This was a request by the Track Foreman for the clerk
 in the Tucson signal office to send him some certain forma and special
 delivery stamps. It has no relation to train movements and'is not a
 message of record. The claim is denied.,
 . .- a ~64 55 3"' Jq ! y

 Sub-Claim 3 and 4: The Engine Crew Dispatcher at Tucson asked the Telegrapher at Casa Grande what time the work train was to go on duty the next day and the Telegrapher told him 5:30 a.m. This

 information concerning the time a crew began work is substantially
 similar to that in Claim 4 and in Awards 12620 and 6330. It relates to work assignments, and does not directly or immediately concern the movement of trains. It cannot be considered a record communica-',' tiono The claim has no merit.

 I Sub-Claims 5 and 6s The Clerk at Coolidge asked the Clerk in Tucson:
 "Do we have a cattle car on Phoenix Stock Train today? If sop when
 I did it leave TucsonVI Reply was: "There is one car on Stock Train date for Coolidge, and he left Tucson at 1:12 p.m." We think that this conversation had to do with the operation of trains and was a communication of record, and is the type of 'communication which belongs to Telegraphers. Award 12621 is in point here and supports our position. Carrier seeks to distinguish that Award on the ground that the conversation there was about ,cars which were to move whereas here the conversation concerns ·a car which, has already moved. We are not impressed with this argument. It is a distinction without a difference. The claim is sustained. Sub-Claim 2and 8s The call from the clerk' at Phoenix to the clerk at Coolidge concerned bus transportation home for a man who had been bumped at,Hayden. This did not concern movements of trains and was not a communication of record. The claim is denied., Sub-Claim 9s: ,The Agent at Coolidge telephoned the Roundhouse Foreman - r at Phoenix and told him that the Conductor on No.?1 advised that Car No. 105 was running hot. In our judgment this type of message,concerns the operation of trains and is the type of communication which

                            - 2- a

55 3 wo~ I ~/

 belongs to Telegraphers. See Award 23 of Special Board 306 (Referee;
 Whiting). The claim is sustained.
 Sub-Sub-Claim 1010: The Trainmaster at Phoenix called the Agent at Coolidge
 and gave him a massage for the Conductor of the East Drag. The !
 message asked why a certain car had been left blocking the driveway,
 to a shipper's warehouse contrary to shipper's instructions. This
 was an inquiry as to why the work had not been properly performed. i
 It did'not relate to the movement of trains and was not a communica-

 tion of record. The claim is denied.

 CLAIM N0. 6

 A conductor while at Hazen telephoned the Dispatcher at Ogden and asked if he would have time to set out there ahead of Train No. 27. The Dispatcher said yes and requested information on a car which the Conductor had set out earlier at Toy. The Conductor

 then gave the following information on the hot box set outs "Car
 SP-167;318 load of ore for Stockton' California hot box L-4 South p
 side steel wheels capacity 100,000 needs 5'-1/2 X 10 press." The
 Dispatcher ,then asked the conductor for his consist out of Hazen
 and this was given as "18 loads 39 empties!'. The Conductor than
 asked where he was to place the oars for Modaa branch on arrival at
 Fernley. The Dispatcher told him to put them on the West pass at
 Fernley;, All of these communications related to the control and
 movement of trains and are the type of messages which belong to
 Telegraphers. We have already so ruled in this case'on such matters
 as instructions concerning setting out oars and the hot=box report.
 As to the consist there can be no question. Carrier's representative
 was at a loss to understand why the consist was requested and given
 admitting that this information is handled by Telegraphers. The

 claim is sustained.

 _23_
 Opinion.

 FINDING

 The Agreement was violated to the extent indicated in the

 AWARDS

 Claim No. is
Sub-Claims 11-15, 17 and 31 are sustained.

 Sub-Claims 1-2; 3-43 5-6; 7; $-9; 10; 12-13; 14; 16; 18-193 20-21; 22-23; 24-25; 26-27; 28-293 30; 32-33; ~34'> 35; 36; 373 38 are denied.

 Claim No. 2: Sub-Claims 8-9; 10-11; 15-16; 17-22; 25-26;
 27-28; 36-373 41; 51-523 59; 60 are sustained.

 Sub-Claims 1-2; 3-4; 5; 6-7i 12-13; 14;
29-30; 31-32; 33-34-353 38-39; 40; 42-43-44;
47-48; 49-50; 53; 54-55; 56; 57-58 are denied.

 23-24; 45-46;
Claim No. 3 is denied.

 Claim No. 4 is denied.

 Claim No. 5: Sub-Claims 5=6 and 9 are sustained.

            Sub-Claims 1, 2t 3-,43 7-8 and ZO are denied:


Claim No. 6 is sustained.

      SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT °N0. 553


troy ~.tiay, OWEIrman~

 . A. Bobo~ye Member

 San..Franciscof California June 28, 1965
w. Mang, 7arrier Member