$TATZMENT- OF CLAIM:
Award No* 17
 Docket Woa 17

 SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 553 THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS'

 SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY (PACIFIC' LINES)
 ROY R. LAX. Referee
"Claim'of the General Committee of The Order'of''Railroad Telegraphers, on the ,Southern Pacific_(Pacifio Lines)' that:













quent to January 21' 19610
., .., 0 S,~3~ 553- AKJOI 1'7 .



· Wire Chief by telephone or telegraph. The Record shows that the testing
 and patching at Montello during off-duty as well 'as on-duty hours had
 always been done by Telegraphers prior to January 21, 1961, :Sometime
 shortly before that date. Carrier issued a letter of instructions to the
 Wire Chiefs at Ogden and Sparks stating that henceforth during the off
 / duty hours of the Telegraphers the District Lineman was to be called


S6,4 553-
Tanner later issued an instruction that Telegraphers should not be
 called foj this type of work because it belonged to L
carrier afite that Where Wire chefs are located all tooting and patching belongs to theme ,Rmt.j%.t argues that where Wire Chiefs are not located (e.g. at Montelle where there is only. an Agent-Telegrapher) the testing and patching may be done by persons other t)i h Telegrqpherse It seeks to draw a distinction between the Wire Chief who is,listed in the Gcope,Rule and the Regular Telegrapher who is not primarily engaged in the work of testing. Carrier concedes that prior to January 21' 1961 at Montello and on the entire Salt Lake Division the testing and patching in the telegraph office was done by Telegraphers when off-duty as well as when on-duty but it says that prior to this time linemen had done this kind of work at other places on the system where Telegraphers were employed. All of Carrier's evidence as to past praotioe by nontelegraphers' is on form letters containing. a state0jentrx,ay,gre lav Carr a as to the practice with,blanks for the employe to fill in places and dates. The Record indicates.that these letters were withheld by Carrier during the hearing on the property and the Organisation was afforded no opportunity to ascertain the names of such employee or to .combat the statements. In our view this ihitself makes the statements suspect,
 The -Oiganization has a6aee.of evidence from widely scattered ^ points on the system which is_highly persuasive. as to-,actual practio®. ,_ at different places- In_,general the letters state. that it was standard practice for this testing and patching in the Telegraph Office to be done by the Telegraphers and that the Writers'nerer knew of it being
 iA553-qLzd

 performed by linemen. Upon the entire record we find that there may have been_scattered instances of performance of such testing and ,patching by linemen at some places, but that it war not standard practice for linemen to do this work® Moreover' on the Salt, Lake Division there is,no doubt whatever that the work was performed exclusively by Telegraphers prior to_the incident giving'rise to the present Claim, Carrier's own instructions to its Wire Chiefs, seems to bear out that Telegraphers do this testing, and patching. Rule 12 says that the Wire Chief,is to "Make every possible location test and measurement that is practical before notifying.Linemen". He can do this only by calling the Telegraphers and having them make the tests Presumably the Wire Chief would notify the Lineman only after the trouble had been located,
 The better reasoned Awards of the Third Division clearly support the position of the Organization here. The lead .1ward is 3524 in which Referee Carter said:

 "The Carrier contends that testing, patching and balancing do not belong exclusively to the telegraphers. In this respect we are of, the opinion that testing patching and balacing is work belonging exclusively to telegraphers when it is incidental to and done in connection with the operation of lines, either telegraph or telephone' in performing work belonging to telegraphers under their Agreement. On the other-hands such work is not that of the telegrapher when done by Telegraph and Signal

          Maintainers incidental .to and in connection with the maintenance of lin.ese"

This Award was followed by the Board in SOTS where it held that the disputed work was testing and was an integral part of the testing of lines. being accomplished by the Wire Chief and bblonged to

                                            3-4 553-,d 17


telegraphers. Later in the, docket involved in Award 10967 Carrier's 'detfensp was the same, as in the case now before us), too., that the worl , of tosti.ng:and pa.tching did not come exclusively within the Ocop® Rules The Board said that while the case was baing.,considered on the property Carrier offered no evidence of its averment that "for many years it has been the general practice on this property for employes not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement to assist in the testing and patching ®f
 telephone lines." Speaking for the Board, Referee Dorsey laid down the
 i:
 following propositions I

          "As we read Award 3524 and related Awards, cited 1. above there is a presumption that testing and ,~i. .


          Tti rebut comes within must proves (1) the work

          was performed as an incident to a position not

          under the Telegraphers' Agreement; or (2) by

          tradition, historical practice or custom the,

          work was not exclusively performed on the

          property by employes covered by the Telegraphers'

          Agreement. In the record Carrier has not proven

          either of these recognised defences,"

To the same effect is the more recent Award No. 1304+. We regard this proposition as' sound'. We believe that the work of testing and patching in the telegraph office is work incidental to and done in connection with the work normally performed by telegraphers. To us It
 does not make sense to use a lineman for this Job. In the case at
 I hand we find that the Carrier has not rebutted the pxesu*ptton,by ',
 sutfiolent svidenoe from which reasonable men could find,in its i

                                        ry ,


                                                          .

S,34 55 3 -,d I 7

 At-'. o o,Employee`NOW

 San Francisco, California, Tune 28, 1965

 _F'or,the reasons expressed we.hpld_that the work of test;tng

 and,P0o14nB xires in the telegraph office taeloap to telegraphers.

 FINDING

 That Agreement was violated*

 The claim is sustained*

 SP&L"IAL BOARD OF AD3VOTMENT NO* 553

 Roy . t~ay'chairman

 Le V* ' 8 .oan' 71Member