SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WIG, 553
THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY (PACIFIC LINES)
ROY R, RAY, Referee
Award We. 18.
Docket N.o, 18
'',AZI,WMENT
OF CLAIM: ,
' "Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad
folearaphera on the, Southern Pacific (Pacific L,ines)s that:
', ,
CLAIhL NO, 1
1, The Carrier violated the parties" Agreement when it required ,
or permitted employer not covered by the Telegraphers' Agree-,
ment'at Port Chicago9 West Oakland and Richmond, California' i
to transmit and/or receive messages of rF.ord over the
telephone:
The Carrier shally because of the violations set out above'
compensates
(e.) A. D. Holmgren Relief Telegrapher-Clerk Port Chicago·.Avoat,
for one special ash February 69 1958.
(b) L. A. Robinson 2nd Telegrapher-Clerk-PMO West Oakland,
for one special call February 6~ 1958.
(e) J. R. Nioholsont 2nd Telegrapher-Clerk' Oakland Pier
for one special call February 6' 1958.
The Carrier shall in addition to. tae fo7cegoingt pay the
aezsior 'qualified Idle extra telegrapheat or if none availabi,eg
the senior idle regularly assigned telegrapher at the neareStlooation to Richmond' Galiforrii&g one day's,p4y (8 hotaxa)' at
'the applicable rate for February,,.61 1958. , ,
CLAIM N0. 2
Ths'Carrier violated the parties' Agreement when it required
ox"permitted employer not
oovexed.by
the Te1eg>·aphers^ Agree"
uL$nt 'at'
OaklaHii ' Pier i -Port C3hic4gpj, and Ric haiond' Ca7.ifor niqg . _: _
to transmit..aad/or receive misaages~of roeoover the telephone,
5~3-A 553
The Carrier shall, because of the violations set out above'
compensates
(a) .T. 8. Nicholson, . end Tejo gxapher··Olexk' ftkland Pler,
for a
~tw0
hour C811 for March 6, 1958.
`(b) C. D. Hepburn 2nd Telegra her-Clerk, Port Chicago, for
a two hour call March 6' 158. ,,
3.
The Carrier shall, in addition to the foregoingy pay the senior
qualified idle extra telegraphers or if none available the
senior idle regularly assigned telegrapher at the nearest location to Richmond Callforniap one day's pay (8 hours) at the
,applicable rake kor Marsh 69 1958,
CLAIM
The Carrier violated the parties' Agreement when it required
or permitted employee not covered by the Telegraphers' Agree*#ht at Oakland Piex:and Port Chicago' Cali£orniap to transmit
.'and/or receive messages o£ record over the telephone,
The Carrier~ahall$ because of the violations set
out
above'
compensates
(a) J. R. Nicholson, 2nd Telegrapher-Clerk, Oakland Piext for
s two hour hall' April 23t 1958.
(b) a,two.hour oa~.l~Aprile23ap~9~gClerk' Port Chio&gol For
1. The Carrier violated the parties" Agreement when it required
or germitted employee not covered by the Telegraphers' Agree..
me nb at Oakland 16th Street' and
Fort
Chicago, Californian gyp,
transmit and/or receive messages o£ record over the t®lephone.
2.
The Carrier shall' because of the violations set out above'
compensate:
(a) R. H. 8s11q Relief Telegrapher-Clerk Oakland 16th Street g,
.£or a two hour calf July 2 aid 2' 158. .
(b) A. D..Rolmgreni Relief Telegrapher-Clerk' Port Chitrag63
ei.
for a two hour call July 1 and 2'~1958.t ;.
four separate olaime in this
base
~nvolv® telephdnm
`%;.
, t .
4:
e
';;< . .. , ., The
,·Coftqqre4tions between peraonq in the Car Diatributops Office 1n
· ~ s~,,~
55~-~d
r8
Oakland and clerks,. at. Port Chicago' Richmond and West Oakland concerning the handling of cars and what was to be done with them. The
Organization claims that in each instance the message given by the
Car Distributor was a message of record which should have been trans.
' muted only by a telegrapher. Carrier says that this type of, work does
. not belong to telegraphers because of the specific wording of the Agreemeat and that Car Distributors have handled this kind of communication
'~ by telephone for more than thirty-:five years. Since the content of the ,,
` ` messages vary somewhat we will describe the message or messages in each
claim.
Claim o. la The message said:
"Effective immediately harts and gonds originating
Matheson destined Stege and Nichols are to be returned
to Matheson instead of general service.T100a"
Claim-No. 2_: The message to clerks at Richmond and Port Chicago saids
"Effective immediately discontinue returning goads when
made empty at Nichols and Stege return to general service.',
However, continue to return harts to Matheson as shipper
desires to confine his'loading to hoppers. T 100".
. This seems to have been an amendment or modification of the
message in Claim No. 1.
Qaim No. 3r There were two messages. The first reads
"UP 50056 mty D F loader on hand fort Chicago,
Bill and forward to Standard-Oil Co. Richmond Agent,
,
Richmond advise date loaded, destinations con
ane;
routing' consignee and any stops enroute AD 878."
. .,. The second message was similar giving numbers, of twoother
. cars, to be forwarded to "Febie and Perrelli on Agents order
525."
It
had a Number RD 877. ,
-3-?~
S (i. 55 Awe[
gJ 8'
l.~m No.
4s
The first message in this claim was similar to those in,
Claim No. 3. It had a Number T 547> The second message reads i.
' "NNf 27423-40W ampty at Port Chicago with large portion
of
-£l®or-outs
Agent Fort
Chicago bill to R. Brsepke SP
.. 8hopa
Went
Oakland for sepiirs. Forward on revenue' billing .
without charges. JLH be on lookout and See plaobd
ih-shops
promptly after"arrival Oakland.
RE
and ABU Arrange repairs -
and when done notify this office. H-8.°'
All of these claims involve'the same questions,
:Lee.'
whether this type of telephone message from the Car Distributor or
his clerks violates the Agreement. The messages here are similar to
those in Claim 4 of Award 12, Claim 3 of Award l1+ and Claim 16. The
chief difference is that in those cases the information Was given by
the clerk to the Car Distributors whereas here the Car Distributorts
clerk gave instructions concerning the disposition of the oars. The
messages, howeverfl all relate to the handling and distribution of
cars. In the Awards just mentioned we have already ruled that the
Scope Rule does not cover the use of the telephone for this purpose
by clerks in the Car Distributor's Office, who have performed this
work for many years. For the reasons expressed in Award 16' Award 12
(Claim 4)
and Award l)+ (Claim 3)y we hold that the Organization has
shown no right to the work involved in theme
claims.
The Agreement was not violated.
Claims 1' 2' 3 and.
1.
are denied. .
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO.
553'
Roy R. Ray, Chairman
D. A. Bobo, Employe
member
b. W. ploan~ Carrier Member
San Fpanciscop California
June 28: 1965 -t~, . ' "': '