SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
N0.
553
TRANSPORTATION - COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES
UNION
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY (PACIFIC LINES)
ROY R.. RAY, Referee
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Award No. 30
Docket No.
30
"1. The Carrier violated and continues to violate, the
current Telefraphers; Agreement between the parties
particularly Rules 1, 2,
31 47 51 61 7, 14, 15~ 167 17, 19,
21, 40 and 41, or any other Rule of the Agreement having
application to the instant case, beginning August
5, 1960
and'continuing each date thereafter, when the Carrier
required or permitted work belonging exclusively to employes
covered by the Scope Rule of the Telegraphers' Agreement
to be removed therefrom and to be performed by employes of
another class and craft, such as Assistant Chief Dispatchers
clerical employes assigned to the Chief Dispatcherts office
(stenographers for example); Supervisors, Assistant Super
visors and others.
"2. As a consequence of the violation being required or
permitted at Ogden, Utah, the Carrier shall be required
to comply with the Rules governing the employment and compen
sation of the Telegraph Service employes, and during the.interim
from August 59
1960,
until the violation ceases, the Carrier
shall compensate:
(a) L. P. Chamberlain, Telegrapher-PMO-Clerk, Ogden,
Utah his assigned or ccesioro for one special call at Tue
rate of Tuesday,
Wednesday and Thursday. each Sunday, D. D. Terry, Relief Manager-Wire, Chief-Telegrapher-
PMO Ogden, Utah or his successor, for one special.
call at 1;he rate of his assigned position each Friday.
(c) R.
l1a.
Pecknik, Relief Wire Chief-Telegrapher-PMO-
Cle:k, Ogden, Utah, or his successor, for one
special call at the rate of his assigned position each
Saturday:;
CARRIER: TEL-752-1148
CC%R4ITTEE: C-508-1
GRAM DIV.: 762.1/53
S(3~4 553' Q4wc~ ~0
(d) Claimants named above stand for the calls due to
going off or coming on duty on their regular
assignment nearest to the time of violation. If abolish
ment or reclassification of positions, a change in the
time of violation, or any
other change, causes one of them
to cease t o fulfill this qualification, then, as of the
date such change becomes effective the claim for that
employe shall be transferred to the other employes at
Ogden, Utah who'do go off or come on duty on his regular
assignment nearest to time of violation.
(e) Joint check of the Carrier's records is requested to
determine evidence of the violations being required or
permitted by-the Carrier, and to determine the list of all
proper claimants and the amount of compensation due each
claimant."
OPINION OF BOARD: This case is strikingly similar to Docket No. 29.
i Here the Union alleges that Carrier violated the Agreement on August 5~
1960-and subsequent dates by requiring or permitting non-telegraphers
in the Chief Dispatcher's office at Ogden, Utah to transmit by
,telephone to a supervisor in the General Offices at San Francisco,
a morning situation report covering the Salt Lake Division,
I
For many years prior to 1960, a morning situation report had
been transmitted by teletype to the General Offices in San Francisco.
This report, known as the morning "Ink Report", gave statistical data
i on various phases of train operations on the Salt Lake Division.
According to the present General Chairman who was at Ogden from 1955
to 1964, as Wire Chief, Telegrapher and Printing Machine Operator,
this report was prepared in the Chief Dispatcher's office daily and
sent to the telegraph office between
5
and 6 a.m. He had instructions
to send
it
to San Francisco,promptly upon receipt. When the report
-2_
i
~E ,
i r
5 BA 553- , .x~l 30
Was late he was required by the San Francisco office to explain the
.delay. On August
5,
1960 Carrier issued instructions to discontinue
sending the report by teletype and instead to duplicate it and send
the copies by mail to San Francisco. These instructions were followed.
Shortly thereafter the District Chairman learned that the report was
being telephoned to San Francisco and then filed the present claim.
Carrier says that non-telegraphers-at Ogden had been telephoning this same information or a considerable part of it to the
Transportation Department
in San Francisco since 1942. By Carrier's
own admission these telephoned reports cover the situation at certain
yards and the performance of certain trains on the division. The
present General Chairman, then District Chairman at Ogden, denies that
prior to August 1960 he had knowledge that any employees except telegraphers were transmitting the situation report information to San Francisco.
Carrier has made the same arguments in this case as in
Docket No. 29. In fact its brief is identical. On principle the cases
cannot be distinguished. If anything, the Union's showing that it had
no knowledge of the telephoning of the information by non-telegraphers
is stronger here.
For the reasons expressed in Award 29 we hold, that the report
being telephoned by non-telegraphers is a communication of record and
that its transmission belongs to telegraphers. The Carrier's acts
vio
lated the Agreement.
AWARD
?The claim is sustained for one call payment each,for
telegrapl,:ers Chamberlain, Terry, and Pechnik. The continuing part
f
_. r
SBA 55 3 - 3 0
of the claim is denied. Carrier is directed to restore to telegraphers
the transmission of the information in this situation report.
SPECIAL
BOARD
OF ADJQSTMENT.NOo 553
Roy
R.'Rays Chairman
14-90
A. B76bo) ~mploye Member
San Francisco California
September 2,
1965
L.' W. Sloan~ ~arrier .Member