Award No: 20
Docket No. 20
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJU4THSNTXO*
553
THE ORDER OF RAILROAD ALE(i#iAPRER3
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY. (PACIFIC LINES)
ROY R. RAY. Referee.
OF CLAM.
" '` "Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad
Telegraphers on the Southern Pacific Company (Pacific Lines).thatr
Claim 19'0.
The Carrier violated the parties' Agreement when on April 29' ,
,1959 it required or permitted a roadmaster at Pringle, Oregon g'
the assistant chief train dispatcher at Eugene, Oregon,
neither of whom are covered by'the parties" Agreement, the
former to transmit and the latter to receive, a message over
the telephone.
2. The Carrier shall because of the violations set forth above;
compensate the foilowinga
(a) T. J. Sprinkel, lst telegrapher-clerks Pringle for one
special call., '
(b) H. 3. Fults lot telegrapher-clerks Eugene) for one
special calif
Claim No.,2
1. The Carrier violated the parties agreement when on July 13,
1959 'it required or permitted:a car repairman at .8eaumoait' ~ ,
Calilornia° not covered by the parties' Agreement to txansmt.t,
a
message'
over the telephone (dis~;Ltchexs)a ,outsia.® the
assuraed
hours of the agent-telegrapher,w ..
·~2.' The 'Carrier shall because of;thp violation sot.forth'abovea
compensate C. D. 6asper° xegu7,axly assigned agent-telegrapher.'
Beaumont, , Californian fox
one s pecial
aa7,i.4"
- ~ s~ 553-~d as
OPINION OF BOARD:
' This case includes two separate claims in which the Organiza-
tion contends that
employes
other
than
Telegraphers
used
the telephone
for transmission of messages which under the Scope Rule may be transmittedonly by telegraphers.
Claim No. 1
,__...
, The Roadmaster at Pringle9 Oregon called the Assistant Chief
Train Dispatcher at Eugene and gave him the following messages "Place
a slow order in effect April 30 for 1 day only. Between
8:x+5
A. M. and
3:30
P.M. do not ekoeed
20
M.P.H. over east switch Hito M.P.71+2.1."
The Organization contends that this message affected the
' movement of trains and the safety of persons and personnel. Carrier
says that what controlled train movements was the train order issued
the next day and that it is a common practice for maintenance of way
foremen to call dispatcher and request that slow order be issued'.
We believe this message clearly related to the movement of
trains. There would also seem to be little doubt that there is either
a requirement or a need for making this kind of information a matter of
record. The act of the Roadmaster in notifying the Dispatcher of his
work limits for the next day and the need to reduce speed of all trains
moving at that point was certainly important to the Dispatcher in determining the proper movement of trains over the area the following day.
We have read all of the awards cited and consider the best reasoned
opinion to be that of Referee Smith in Special Board of Adjustment
No. 117 (Award 17)9 where the fact situation was the same as that here.
Another recent .ward to the same effect is Special Board of Adjustment
No.
355
(Award
253).
Both Awards were by a unanimous Board. Awards 145
. -2-'
S53-so-~
d
ao
of Special Board., of Adjustment No. 355 and 592 of the Third Division
support our position.
We have carefully considered Award 12618 (Claim 1) cited by
Carrier' where the Foreman requested the 'Dispatcher to "Cancel slow ''
order between 288.5 and 289.5'1. In that
case
the Board said the
message was
not
a train order and no record was made of
it;
that the,
train order was sent later by the Dispatcher. This was the entire
reason given by the Board. In our judgment it completely misses the
point. The question involved there as in our case was not whether the
message was a train order but whether it affected the movement of
trains. We have no doubt that it did. Award 11812, also cited by
Carrier, also missed the point as to whether the communication affected
strain movements. The only reason given by the Board was that employes
had not shown an exclusive practice on the property. We decline to
accept either of these Awards as in any manner controlling the case
before us. The claim is sustained.
ClaimNc.-2,
A car repairman at Beaumont called the Dispatcher at
Los Angeles and advised that two oars (giving initials and numbers)
were ready to go.
The Organization contends that this was a message of record
and pertained to the movement of trains. We cannot agree. This was
merely a report of work completed. The
fact
that the cars would later
be moved does not show any immediate effect on train movements. Two
recent awards of the Third Division on this. property are persuasive on
this ;point. Iri 12615 the claim was based,on ,phone conversation between,,
a car-repairman and a dispatcher wherein the former: reported on the
s
&A 55 3 - , .~ ab
comple~ion_ of repairs _ on certain cars
and.
their location, In 1261,8
'(Claim 3) the_,Roundhouse, Foreman at FriNs; called- the Dispatcher at
· Los Angeles aid told
him that a certain
was rewheeled
and
ready
... .., .. ,
'' to,.go. In both of these Awards the
Boaz4''aa.id
the messages were not
~. oommuiiioations off' record and did not
affect
-the movement
of
trains or
'the safety of passengers or property.' Se$ also Special Board of
Adjustment No.
525,
Award 10. The clam 3b without merit, and is denied.
FINDINQ.,.;,
·. .:
_ . : The Agreement was violated air.`
to,.
Claim
No. 1. There was no "·
...,violation
as
to Claim No. 2 ;` '
. , AWARD . '
Claim No. 1 is sustained . · '
Claim No, 2 is denied.
. ' SPECIAL BOARD of
ADJUSTMENT
NO.
553
Roy
R6 Ray,
Chairman
f
p 1.
Bo bop Employe Member ~ . , o . . . Slosn, tier Member
San Francisco, California',"'' ,
'sutra28' 1965 , .; r ; , , . : . .
· t
.k,
c