Award No. 29
Docket No. 29
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0.
553
TRANSPORTATION - COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES UNION
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY (PACIFIC LINES)
ROY R. RAY, Referee
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
CARRIER: TEL-152-11~
COMITTEE: x-203-1
GRAND DIV.: 762.2/:
"1. Carrier violated, and continues to violate, the provisions
of the Telegraphers' Agreement between the parties, par
ticularly Rules 1; 2,.3a 4~ 5, 6~ 7, 147 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 40
and 41, or any other RLlle of the Agreement having application
to the instant case, beginning July 117 1960 and continuing
each date thereafter, when the Carrier required or permitted
work belonging exclusively to employes covered by the Scope
Rule of-the current Telegraphers' Agreement to be removed there
from and'to be performed by employes of another class and craft
such as Assistant Chief Dispatchers and clerical employes assigned
_in the Chief Dispatcher'.s office.
"2. As a consequence of the violation being permitted at
Bakersfield the Carrier shall be required to comply with
the Rules governing the employment and compensation of the
Telegraph service employes and during the interim from July 111,
1960
until the violation ceases, the Carrier shall compensate.
an extra or regular assigned employe as follows:
"3. (a) Claim in behalf of Jack Panicky Telegrapher-PMO-Clerk
. Bakersfield or his successors shall be paid a special
two (2) hour cal. at the overtime rate of pay each date
violation occurs, commencing July 11, 1960.
(b) Claim
in
behalf of D. Meyersq relief Wire Chief-
Telegrapher, Bakersfield, or his successor, shall be
paid a special two (2) hour call at the overtime rate of
pay each date violation occurs, commencing July 16, 1960.
"4. On each date, in each instance subsequent to July 11 19609
that the Carrier permits or requires employes of another
,class and craft at Bakersfield to fill positions and perform
work belonging exclusively to the Telegraph class of employes',
the Carrier shall be required to pay the senior, qualified
idle, extra:Telegrapher, or if no seniors extra Telegrapher
is available? then the seniors idle, regularly assigned Telegrapher
at Bakersfie'._d shall be paid a special call or eight
(8)
hours
at the overtf.me ratei or the applicable compensation provided for
under the prkvailing Agreement.
SIN 5.53 -AwJa9
"NOTE: Request is made for a joint check of the Carrier's
records~in order to determine the evidence of the
violations being required or permitted by the Carrier,
also in order to determine the proper claimants and -
the amount of compensation due each claimant."
OPINION OF BOARD: This is another case
involving transmission
of
information concerning the performance of trains. The Union alleges
that Carrier violated the Agreement on July 11, 1960 and subsequent
dates by requiring or permitting employees in the Chief Dispatcher's
office at Bakersfield, not covered by the Agreement to transmit by
telephone to the General Superintendent's office in San Francisco a
morning situation report covering the San Joaquin Division.
For many years'prior to 1960 a morning report, compiled in
the Chief Dispatcher's office at Bakersfield had been filed in the
telegraph office there and transmitted by teletype to the General
Office in San Francisco. This report known as the morning "Ink Report"
,gt:ve statistical data on the various phases of train operations on the
~f' San Joaquin Division for the preceeding 24 hours. Since 191+2 Carrier
has been having non-telegraphers at Bakersfield telephone this same
irv
information or a considerable part of it to the Transportation Department
in San Francisco. By Carrier's own admission these telephone reports
cover the situation at-certain yards and the performance of certain
trains on the division. In March 1960 the Transportation Department
directed that the teletyping of the Morning Ink Report be discontinued
and that thereafter it be sent by mail. A few months later the Union
filed this claim.,,
-2-
~ say ~~- ~-~l aq
Carrier argues that there has been no diversion of work
from the telegraphers to other employees; that what happened was
merely the discontinuance of certain telegraphic work in connection
`-with the Ink Report and the substitution of mail service in lieu
thereof, and that the information mailed is the same as that in the
prior teletyped report. It says that the information phoned is the
same as that prior to the discontinuance of the telegraphic report
and that it has not been enlarged as a result thereof. Carrier
contends that the Union has failed to produce proof that the telephoning of the information has been exclusively reserved to telegraphers.
The Union denies that it was aware that prior to 1960 the
report was being telephoned by non-telegraphers; it says it had no
reason to suspect that this was being done since telegraphers were still
=transmitting the report by teletype each day. While Carrier says that
the telephoned information is not an exact duplicate of that which is
/phoned it admits that much of the same information in the Ink Report
P
was and still is being telephoned. It has no explanation for the
~j duplication in sending the same information by teletype and telephone
°· or now by mail and telephone.
a%
:r
We are satisfied that the situation report being telephoned
,,Y"
each day is a communication of record and that its transmission belongs
to telegraphers. We are unable to distinguish this case in principle
from those involved in Dockets
27
and
28.
Therefore, for the reasons
expressed in those awards we hold that the telephoning of the information
by non-telegraphers violated the Agreement. Carrier's argument that
' r
. . w
~ 5 5 3 , 9(-~.~d a-9 .
no work has been taken from telegraphers is without merit. It was
removed in two steps - first Carrier started the telephoning of the
report along with the teletyped report; then it discontinued the
teletyped report. There is no evidence to show that the telegraphers
ever acquiesced in the practice of the Company in having other employees
telephone the report (actually no proof that they were aware of it).
Consequently we hold that they were entitled to assert the violation
in 1960 when the teletyping was taken from them, Award 12667.
The interest of the telegraphers is fully protected in
having the work restored to them. Consequently we reject any continuing
claimf
AWARD
Claim sustained for one call payment each for Telegrapher
E
clerk Panick and Relief Wire Chief Meyers for the dates of July 11 and
16 respectively. The continuing part of the claim is denied. Carrier
is directed to restore to telegraphers the transmission of the information
in the situation report.
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0.
553
Roy R. aye Chairman
D. A. Bobo, ',tploye Member L. W, Sloan~ carrier Member
San Franci4~,h~ California
September
r'
1965