` E, The Carrier shall, because of the violations set forth in


' (a) J. R. Knoll Extra Telegrapher-Clerk-PMOt Phoenix Yardq
                  overtime rate for,Maroh 29,1959.


-`, (b) D. D. DeHart; lot Telegrapher-.Clerk] Mesa Arizona for

                  eight (8) hours at the overtime rate for Aarcli 21 1959*


              1(c) G. Townley, 2nd TelegrapheriClerk-PMO .'UNt Telegraph

              ' Office, Tucson, Arizona' for one special call March18$

        ' 1959. . _


            (d) R. Reed, 3rd Telegrapher-Clerk, Casa Grandeq Arizona `4 for one special call March 19$ 1959.


                  (e) S. W. Cox Extra 2nd Telegrapher-Clerk? Casa Grandep. Arizonag for one special call April;'169 1959.


                  (f) J. F0 Wellsq 2nd Telegrapher-Clerk-PMO', Phoenixy Arizona' for one special call April 16' 19590"


                                -lV


        . J .r

            _. . . 5.~3~ 553-'(5

                                                            i


    OPINION ROARDt

    . Four different telephone conversations are involved in thisl

',..:Claim. The organization contends that 2n each instance they related
 .'t,,.to the movement of trains and that the Agreement was violated when '

 "'persons other. than telegraphers transmitted or received them. The
 ,I
 ''Carrier says that all of the communications were merely exchanges of
 ,,information by employees in connection with their regular assigned
    ,,duties,and that it is common practice for such employees to transmit these types of information, Since the fact situations are different each of the calls will be treated as a separate sub-claim.


    0~1b-Claim Is An employe at Hayden Junction called the crew dispatcher, at Phoenix and said he wished to displace the conductor on Crew 323 on lthe next day. This related to a personnel assignments seniority and displacement. It did not relate to the movement of trains and was not a communication of record. The,Organization has made no showing of an exclusive practice for telegraphers to transmit this kind of message. Denial Award 12620 covers this type of situation. See Award 149 Claim 1 (Sub-Claim 12-13) and Claim )+ of this Board. The claim is denied.


    9 ab,-Clams 2 and I: The Agent at Rillito called a clerk at Tucson and

'.-reported that a mail sack thrown from a train had damaged a mail crane' `,°.. and asked that it be repaired. He was told that such repair would be
    .made as ,soon as possible* This did not affect the movement of trains

~:~_and.cannot be regarded as a message of record. This is somewhat simila;.
    ,.,; 'Go Denial Award 12616 where a signal maintainer reported, that a traI4`,` ',1 .. had knocked a pole down. The claim is without merit.

Sub-Claim 1-:

 S,6 A. 553 ');5

 i
 A scale tester at Casa Grande called the Trainmaster at ,l

 Tucson and stated that.he was not testing the warehouse scales there
                                                          i


                                                          ''because they were not correctly installed. He asked that an order be I i put on it. This had nothing to do with train movements and was,not a j message of record, The claim is denied.


V. A. Boboy Employs Member

 ,San ,Francisco' California funs 28' 1965

 Sub-Claim 5 and 6'a The signal maintainer at Casa Grande called the Assistant Signal Supervisor in Phoenix and told him that the westbound freight had stopped at the West end of Maricopa that day,because the signal was at the stop position. He was told to. check the circuit for a broken bond wire and_get the signal maintainer at Estrella to help him. This was a report on why a train had stopped. It did not relate' immediately or directly to movements of trains and was not a communication of record. Award 12609 is in point here. There the Signal Supervisor at Tucson advised the signal maintainer. at Welltonthat a light was out in the Wellton signal and to repair it. The Board held the .mesaage~did rot concern train movements..-, Another Denisl'Award~3a 7.2703..

 The present claim is rejected.

 f7NDTNGS

 There was no violation of the Agreement.'

 AWARD

 Rub-Claims 1; 2-3; 1+ and 5-6 are all denied,

        SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJTJSTM$NT NO:. 5~


Ray .ay9 . a rmav

 U ®`

 .oanv arr or Memo