S~ ~
Award No.
33
Docket No.
33
CARRIER: TEL-152-116
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0.
553
CCt,Z1ITTEE: I-.&06-1
GRAND DIV.: ,76.1/53
TRANSPORTATION - COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES UNION
s
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY (PACIFIC LINES)
ROY R. RAY,, Referee
STATEMENT OF CLAIM':
"l.
Carrier violated the provisions of the Telegraphers'
Agreement''particularly Rules l, 2, 141) 16 1'7 and 20,
when, on Clerk? in thbe Chief it caused office, located t
the at
Los Angeles, California, in the Pacific Electric Building,
Los Angeles Division, and who is not an employe covered by
the provisions of the Telegraphers' Agreement, to perform
the work of receiving a message of record, by use of Company
telephone, direct from the Wire Chief-Telegrapher-Clerk,
Yuma, Arizona.
'12'. Carrier shall compensate L. 0'Day, Telephone-Message-PMO,
'HUI General Telegraph Office, Los Angeles, California,
for one special call September 22, 19$0.'1
OPINION OF BOARD: The claim involves the reception of information
over the telephone by the Ink Report Clerk in the Chief Dispatcher's
office in Los Angeles. On September 22, 1960 at 3:30 A.M. the Ink
Clerk called the Wire Chief-Telegrapher atl Yuma, Arizona and had the
latter read the following from the delay report filed by the conductor
of a passenger train:
"Train No. 2 delay
.. Arr. Yuma
1:45
A.M. and tie up 2:15 A.M.
Alabama 8 min psgrs and mail
Pomona 5-min psgrs and mail
Colton-.6 min sgrs and mail
Palm Springs
4
min psgrs,and mail
One Thousand Palms 10 min thru siding
X6438 .
Indio
5
min psgrs and mail
Niland 3 min psgrs and mail"
-1-
S Q A 5 5 3-9~jd 3
3
The Union contends that this was a communication of record and should
have been handled only by telegraphers.
Carrier takes the position that no communication work has
been diverted from telegraphers. It says that on the date of the
claim the telegrapher at Yuma had sent a telegram to the telegrapher
in Los Angeles (addressed to the Chief Dispatcher) embodying the
information shown on the conductor's daily report; that on this date
the telegram had
not
arrived
in
the Chief Dispatcher's office in time
to make the proper entries on the Ink Report, so the clerk called the
Yuma telegrapher to get the information. Carrier says that normally
it is not necessary to make the telephone call. Carrier says it has
been the usual practice to secure the necessary information in, this
manner,. The Union asserts that it was never aware of this prior to
the present claim.
The Company-has made the same argument here as in the other
cases involving the communication of reports concerning the operation
of trains, namely, that the Union has shown no exclusive practice
for telegraphers on this property to
perform the work of receiving
such information. We have rejected this argument in other cases
already decided by this Board. As in Docket 32 we are concerned with
reception of the information, while in all the other situation report
cases the alleged violation was in the transmission. The principle
involved is the same in all the cases and there is no basis for a
different result.
We hold that the delay report on Train No. 2 was a communication of record and that the work of receiving as well as transmitting
-2-
I
~ SB ~ 55 3
-sue
3~3
it belongs to telegraphers. The reasons stated by us in Award 2'7 .,
are applicable here. We find, therefore, that Carrier violated the
Agreement by having the clerk in Los Angeles receive the information
by telephone.
AWARD
The claim is sustained for one call payment for Telegrapher
O'Day on September 22, 1960.
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0.
553
Roy R. Rray, Chair
. A. Robo, Employs Member L. W. Sloan, Ca rr1er Member
San Francisco, California
September 2, 1965
-3-