BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0.
553
THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS ,
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY .(PACIFIC LINES)
ROY R. RAY. Referee
STATEMENT OF CLAIMs.
Award No. 26
Docket
Noa
26
"claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad
Telagraph9rs,on the Southern Pacific (Pacific Lines), theta
1. The Carrier violates the terms of an Agreement between
_ the parties hereto when it fails and refuses to fill the
ear distributor's position at Bakersfie2d' Californian the
occupant of which is required to telegraph in the performaxice o£ his duties, 3n accordance with the provisions
of the parties' Agreement.
2. ' The Carrier shall, because of the violation set out in
Part 1 of this Statement of Claims so long as the occupant
of the ear distributor's position a'; Bakersfield California
is required to telegraph in the performance of his duties
advertise the position to employes covered by the parties=
Agreement in aeqordance with the bulletin and seniority
rules thereof.
The Carrier shall in addition to the foregoing, compensate
the senior qualified idle extra telegraphers or in the
absence of suah9 the senior idle (on their rest days) regular-
ly assigned telegraphers at Bakersfields
California'
a day's
gay at the car distributor's rate for each date commencing
June 27s 1960 and for each date thereafter so long as the
violation complained of continues."'
OPINION OF BOARDa
The sixteen telephone calls in this claim axe the same calls
which formed the basis of Claim 3 of Award 14 of this Board. They were
all made by the Agent at Monolith to the Car Distributor at Bakersfield
on dates between March 24 and April 13, 1959· ooh gave a oar situation
report including the number of empty ears on hand' number billed, number
without bills and the tonnage of East and West cars, The items of the
claim here are different. In Item 1 the Organization claims that Carrier
violates the Agreement when it fails and refuses to fill the car dietributor's position at Bakersfield with a telegrapher. In Item 2_it
asks that the Carrier advertise the position to employes covered by the
Telegraphers,' Agreement; and in Item 3 that Carrier compensate the
senior qualified idle extra telegrapher at Bakersfield for a day's pay
at the Car Distributor's rate from June 279 19609 and as long as the
alleged violation continueso
This claim is really a demand that the Car Distributor's
position at Bakersfield (a position now and for-more than forty years
covered by the Agreement between Carrier and the Brotherhood of Railway
Clerks) be placed under the Telegraphers' Agreemento
The Organization's argument is that the word "telegraph" is
synonymous with "telephone" and since the Agreement covers the Car
Distributor when required to use ,the telegraph in the performance of
his duties this means that when he is required to use the telephone he
is covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement.
Carrier contends that the Scope Rule does hot cover the Car
Distributor position as it exists on this property because he is, not re
quired
to use the telegraph in the performance of his duties. It says
Ithere.has never been an actual position of "Car Distributor" represented
by the Telegraphers in the thirty-nine years since the,present language
of ,the Scope Rule ("oar distributorsy if required to,telegraph
in_the .
performance of their duties") was adopted March l~ 1925. As a matter of
history Carrier states that prior to
1924
four telegraph wires had been
-2r
.y . .- S · S
$~ 653- s~.wo~ lCo
".:;put in the Car Distributor's office at Bakersfield* On March 24, 19249
..'the r
isneral Chairman requested that Carrier either include the position
'of Car Distributor under the Telegraphers' Agreement or remove the wiress
r,,The wires were removed, In the next Agreement,(March 19,1925) the present
language, quoted aboveg was added to the Agreement presumably to prevent
e,
Carrier from having a Car Distributor using the telegraph. .The matter of
"` representation of the Car Distributor was the subject of mediation in
1932 and the case was withdrawn leaving the Car Distributors with the
Clerksa
After a thorough study of the record and all awards cited by
the parties we are convinced that the Scope Rule does not cover the use
of the telephone by Car Distributors in the performance of their dutiesa
At the time the present language ("car distributors' if required to t®1e.:'
,graph in the performance of their duties") was adopted in 1925 the ,.
telephone was in common use by the Car Distributors and we think that
the
events giving rise to the new language show that it was to be literally,'.
applied* Car Distributors were already represented by the Brotherhood
of Clerks and if the parties'had intended to put them under the Tele
graphers' Agreement they would have used broader language such as "Car
. Distributors when required to use the telegraph or telephonef or when
~'' required
to
perform communication work." The record shows beyond any
question that the Car Distributors have been using the telephone on this
'property for handling car distribution and making car reports for approxi-
:`mutely forty years, In our judgment the Organization has presented no
evidence or authority to support its demand that the Car Distributor's
position be placed under the Telegrapher's Agreement,because ,the occupant
~ c3A
553-
fdh._ol
Jlo
.a,seqiired
to.use the telephone. our conclusion is in line with Award..
.).8p~.
9flnsistently with our rulings in Award l+ (Claim 3) egad Award.12
(Claim.4)-we hold that the claim is wit#out merit.
. ; . ,n,.
FINDINGS ., , ', , ,
That the Agreement was not.viel.ataA. .
., AWARD
The claim is denied.
spH=AZ BOARD of ADauaxMIMT No.
553
ROY
lit
Irman
81oantasr ierM
Ban Franoisoog California
June 289 1965