AWARD N0. 21

DOCKET N0. 2~

GR.DIV.: 3323,·

SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 591 , ,

74E ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS ,.,

VS. ';'

READING COMPANY

STATEMENT
OF CLAIM!, "Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad
Telegraphers on the Reading Company that:

1. Carrier violated the agreement between the parties when it failed to comply with the Time Limit Rule when it did not render its decision (on appeal) within sixty days

on the following claims: ,:

(A). 1. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties on September 19, 1959, when and because it,,re,quired and permitted Assistant Trainnaster . R. F'. Burke to handle communication of record at Belt Line ict. in violation of Scope Rule 1 of the Telegraphers' Agreement.

' 2. In consequence thereof G1le.Carrier shall be re"

quired to pay J. Goelz, R. Siminitis and N. _.

Evans a day's pay at.:the,minimum rate for the

above mentioned violation and. on all subsequent

dates when, in violation of the Agreement, extra

operators were not assigned to handle the com..

munication of record in accordance with the

Telegrapherst Agreement.

3. Carrier shall be required to permit joint check of records to ascertain dates when,such subsequent violations occurred to determine senior idle extra telegrephersp

(B). 1. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when and because it requires and permits clerks, employes not covered by the Telegraphers' Agree.: ment to handle communication of record at Phoenixville,Stationp

2. In consequence thereof, the Carrier, shall be

required to pay G. Pollash, A. Seavers and

N. Evans, senior idle "extra telegraphers, ·a

day's pay at the minimum rate account violation

of Scope Rule 1 and all subsequent dates when, in

violation of the agreement, extra operators~were

not assigned to handle this communication of

record in accordance with the Telegraphers` Agree.:

men'. . .. . .

~.., p ., SP A- 5 g l - ~~...A `2;-/ .

3. Carrier shall be required to permit joint check 'of records to ascertain dates when such violations occurred and to determine.,senior

idle extra telegrapher.'

(C), 1: Carrier violated the Agreement between the

parties on October 1 and October 2, 1959, when

and because it required and permitted Chief

Train Dispatcher Harry Crow to transmit messages

' direct to the Western Maryland operator at 'YD'

Office, Hagerstown, Maryland, to be delivered

' ' to CSD-96 and AJ-12 on the above dates, the

above mentioned operator on the foreign railroad

not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement, there

by violating the Scope Rule of the TelegraphersT

Agreement. ,

2. Carrier shall be required to pay P. Hunsicker, , R. Siminitis and N. Evans a day's pay account violation of Scope Rule 1 at the minimum rate of pay on the Reading Division and on all subsequent days when, in violation of the agreement, extra telegraphers were not assigned to handle the communication of record in accordance with the Telegrapherst Agreement. '

3.' Carrier shall be required to permit joint check of records to ascertain dates when such violations

" occurred and to determine 'senior idle telegraphers,

(D). 1. Carrier violated Article'1 of the Telegraphers' Agreement when, commencing on the.25th day of September, 1959, and continuing daily thereafter it caused, required or permitted Yardmaster George Yantzer, West.-End Rutherford Yard, an employe not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement, to perform work of receiving, copying andy'delivering train lineups at West-End Rutherford Yard, which work is, by the agreement, solely and exclusively reserved to employes covered by the Telegraphers=. Agreement.

- 2,- Carrier shall compensate P. Hunsicker, T.. Schira and R. Siminitis a day's pay account violation of Scope Rule 1, at..the minimum rate of pay on the Reading Division and on all subsequent days when,, in violation of the agreement, extra operators were not assigned to copy train lineups in accordance with the Telegraphers' Agreement.

3. Carrier shall be required to permit joint'ehedk

. of records to ascertain dates when such subsequent violations occurred.

p2M ,. ', . .

say 59i-,~,~ a-i

(E). 1. Carrier violated the agreement between the parties when and because itirequired;and per. mitted Supervisor M. Reynolds., an employe not

i covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement, to'

transmit communication of record direct from

Pottstown, Pa., on October 12, 1959, ,

,2. In consequence thereof, Cagier shall be required to pay M. Havertine and R: Siminitis a day's pay account violation of Scope Rule 1, at the minimum rate on the Reading Division, and all subsequent, dates when, in violation of the agreement extra operators were not assigned to handle the commun-., ication of record in accordance with the Tele.. graphers' Agreement.

3. Carrier shall be required to permit joint check

' of records to ascertain dates when such subsequent violations occurred and to determine senior idle telegraphers.

(F). 1. Carrier violated the agreement between the parties when and because it required and permitted clerks, employes not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement, to copy messages direct at Wilmington, Del., on October 9, 12, 13 and 16, 1959.

2_ In consequence thereof,,Carrier shall be required to pay P. Hunsicker, R. Similitis, N. Evans and ' H. Carr a day's pay account violation of Scope. Rule 1, at minimum rate on Reading Division, and on all subsequent dates when, in violation of the agreement, extra operators were not assigned to copy messages of record in accordance with, Telegraphers' Agreement. '

3. Carrier shall be required to permit joint check of records to ascertain dates whensuch subse. quent violations occurred and to determine senior idle telegraphers.

(G). 1. Carrier violated Article 1 of the Telegraphers'.. --Agreement when, commencing on the 4th day of

' October, 1959, and continuing daily thereafter, it caused, required and permitted Clerk Donald. Holbert, 3rd trick West Hump Yard Office, Rutherford, Pa., an employe not covered by the Tele~ graphers' Agreement, to perform work of receiving,' copying and delivering train lineups'at West Hump, Rutherford Yard, which work is, by the agreement, solely and exclusively reserved to.the employes covered by the Telegraphers? Agreement.

., f,, S5A 591 -w~ al

2. Carrier shall compensate P. Hunsicker, J. Goelz, N.Evans and H. Carr a day's pay account violation

' of Scope Rule 1, at the minimum rate of pay on

the Reading Division, and on, all subsequent days

when, in violation of the agreement extra opera

ators were not assigned to copy train lineups in

accordance with Telegrapher`s' Agreement.

' 3: Carrier shall be required to permit joint check of records to ascertain dates when such subsoquent

` violations occurred and to determine senior idle

extra telegraphers, `

(H). 1. Carrier violated the terms of the agreement between

the parties when on November 2, 5, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10,

11, 14 and 15, 1959, it suspended Mr. V. J. Springer

' '; from his regular assignment as relief towerman No.

1, work week Monday to Friday, inclusive, 7:00 A.M,

' to 5:00 P.M., rest days Saturday and Sunday, and

·^' required him to work as train director in place o: E!,

' Director Mattis,

,· 2. Carrier shall compensate Relief TowermanV. J. Springer in the amount of $214.40 for the ten (10) days enumerated above at the rate of the

` position from which suspended in violation of ..

Articles 22 and 7 (c) of Telegraphers' Agreement

at $2,68 per hour.

. (I). 1. Carrier violated the agreement between the parties

when and because it requires and permits clerks,

employes not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement,

to handle communication of record from Catassuqua,

Pa., direct with FD' Office ,, Reading, Pa., thereby

violating Scope Rule 1 of the Telegraphers'

Agreement.,

2; in consequence thereof the Carrier shall be re·quired to pay L. Schira, E. Link an'd R. Siminitis a day's pay at the minimum rate for each violation

' stated herein and on all subsequent dates when, in violation of the agreementv.extra telegraphers were not assigned to handle this communication of record in accordance with the Telegraphers' Agreement.

,

;,''Carrier shall be required to permit a joint check of records to ascertain the dates when such violations occurred said to determine, senior idle

', extra telegraphers

s BA Spy ! - .·9-w o

(J), A day's pay for H. J.Cooper on September 14., 1959,. a regular work day o£ his assignment, account losing this day's pay because of. being used for · relief work on another assignment. ' ` .

(K),' 1. Carrier violated the provisions of the TPle·. '

' grapherst Agreement when arid because it re,.

quired or permitted Conductor H.Adama, an

employe holding no rights Gnder.said agreement

' to enter Topton Station (with key furnished by

carrier) when agent is working at DSertztown, Pa.,

or on assigned rest days aid report times of

record where an employe covered by the scope of

. the agreement is employed, '

2, Mr. Fred Eschbach, the regularly assigned agenttelegrapher at Topton', Pa., shall be compensated, in accordance with Article 8 (a) of the agree ment o£ April 1, 1946, corrected September 1, 1951, for one call for September 12, 1959, and... each subsequent Saturday to be determined by

check of carrier's record for work denied,

Carrier shall, because of the .violations set forth above, pay R. Siminitis and N. Evans, senior idle extra telegraphers, a day's pay at
the Top ton rate, $2.528 for September 15, 16,,
and 17, 1959 and.a11 subsequent dates Conductor
Adams enters Topton~5tation'and reports commun
ication of record when agent is at Mertztown, Pa,

4. Carrier should be required to permit joint check of records to ascertain dates when each subsequent violations 'occurredo

1. Carrier violated the agreement between the parties
on September 25, 1959, when and·'because it per.,
mitted and required Conductor C. Zimmerman, a
train service employe,.to.handle c6mmunication':.
of record at Sinking Spring Station while the .·
agent was off duty ...

in consequence thereof, the Carrier shall be required to pay P. Hunsicker, L. Schira and, R. Siminitis, senior idle extra telegraphers, a day's pay account violation of Scope Rule 1 at the Sinking spring-Denver rate of-pay and a71 subsequent dates when, in violation of the agreement, e:ara operators were not assigned ta..handle this communication o£ record in accordance with the Telegraphers9 Agreement,

3. Carrier shall be required to permit joint check of records to ascertain dates when such sub..

sequent violations occurred,,'

(M).. 1, Carrier violated the agreement between the parties on September 26 and 27, 1959, when and because it required and permitted train service employes to

.handle communication of record:direct with dispatcher at Camp Hill outside the hours. of the,agent-telem
' grapher, thereby violating Scope Rule'l of the ..
Telegraphers' Agreement. r

In consequence thereof, the ICarriershall be required to pay a 'call' to the incumbent of the agent-tele_ropher's position at Camp Hill, Pa., Mr, H. Arnold, for each individual violation listed herein (3 on September 27, 3 on September 26),

1. Carrier violated the agreement between the parties when and because it required and permitted the clerics, employes not covered by the Telegraphers r Agreement, to copy messages direct from Royers£ord, Pa., on August 12, 13, 14, 15, 1959,

2, In consequence thereof, the Carrier shall be required to pay W. R. Gracely, J. Dombroslcie, a day's pay account violation o£ Scope Rule 1, at the minimum rate on the Reading Division, and on all subsequent dates when, in violation o£ the. agreement, extra operators were not assigned to copy messages o£ record in accordance with the Telegraphers' Agreement.

3.`' Carrier shall be required to restore the telegrapher. clerk's position to an eight.-hour day as it was

': prior to March 15, 1958,' arid the, incumbent of the : . position compensated for all losses o£. wages and expenses incurred.

Carrier shall be required to permit a joint check of the records to ascertain the d4tss when such subsequent violations occurred.and to determine the senior idle telegraphers_

1. Carrier violated the agreement between the parties when and because it required and permitted clerks, employes not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement, to handle communication of record at Hershey, Pa., on October 9, 12, 13, 14 and 159 1959.

20

In consequence thereof, the Carrier shall be required to pay P. Hunsicker, E. Link and R. Siminitis a day's pay account violation of Scope Rule 1,, at the._mini..'mum rate on the Reading Division, and on all sub-, sequent dates when, in violation of the agreement, extra operators were not assigned to handle communicatj.on of record in accordance with the.Telegraphers' Agreements

3 -, 5l3A ~g~ - ~W,o a~

3. Carrier shall be required to restore the telegrapher.: clerk's position to an eight (8) hour day as it was

. prior to September 19, 1958, and the incumbent of the position compensated for al 1 losses 'of wages, and expenses incurred.

4. Carrier shall be required to permit joint check of records to ascertain dates when such subsequent, violations occurred and to determine senior idle telegraphers.

(P). 1. Carrier violated the agreement between the parties when and because it required and permitted Clerk John D. Baker, an employe not covered by the Tele~

' gra;-herst Agreement, to transmit to the dispatcher communication of record at Gettysburg, Pa., on . . September 25, 29, 30 and October 2, 1959, and con-. tinued each day thereafter, Monday through Friday.,~ while the agent-telegrapher was off duty and was performing his duties at Mt. Holly Springs, Pa.

2, In consequence thereof, Carrier shall be required to pay P. Hunsicker, L. Schira and R. Siminitis, senior idle extra telegraphers, a day's pay account., violation of-Scope Rule 1 at the Gettysburg rate of'

' pay and on all subsequent dates when in violation

of the agreement extra operators were not assigned

to handle this communication-of record in accord

ance with the Telegraphers'·Agteement.

3. Carrier shall be required to permit joint check of records to ascertain dates when 'such subsequent violations occurred and to determine' senior idle telegraphers. '

(Q). 1: Carrier violated the agreement between the parties
when and because it required and permitted Clerk,
E. M.Stauffer, an employe not covered by the
Telegraphers' Agreement, to receive arid transmit
communication of record at Pennsburg-East Greenville,

' Pa., on October 12 and 14, 1959, and continuing daily Monday through Friday while agent telegrapher was off duty and performing his duties at Boyertown, Pa:

2. In consequence thereof, Carrier shall be'required to pay M. Havertine and R. Siminitis, senior idle telegraphers_ a day's pay account violation of

Scope Rule 1 at the Pennsburg-East Greenville ; ''

Boyertown rate of pay and all subsequent dates

when, in violation of the agreement, extra'operators

are not assigned to handling this communicatibh of

record in accordance with the Telegraphers· Agree..

' ment,

Carrier shall be required to permit joint check

'of records to ascertain dates when such subsequent violations occurred and to determine senior idle `

telegraphers. " .;

(R). 1. Carrier violated the agreement between the parties when and because it required;and permitted Clerk Sewall E. Kapp, an employe riot covdred by the Telegraphers' Agreement, to transmit to the dispatcher communication of record at Mt. Holly Springs, Pa., on September 29 and 30, 1959, while the agent-

. telegrapher was off duty and was performing his

duties at Gettysburg, Pa.

2, In consequence thereof, Carrier shall be required to pay G. Pollash, A. Seavers and N. Evans, senior idle extra telegraphers, a day's pay account violation of Scope Rule 1, at the Mt. Holly Springs rate of pay, anal on all subsequent dates when, in-

violation of the agreement, extra operators were.

not assigned to handle this communication of record

in accordance with the Telegraphers' Agreement,

3. Carrier shall be required to permit joint check
A of the records to ascertain the dates when such
subsequent violations occurred and to determine '
senior telegraphers.

(S). 1. Carrier violated the agreemdrit between the parties

hereto when on July 21, 22, 23P 24, 1959, it caused$

required or permitted train service and other em-.

ployes to handle train orders at 'J' Tower and

Perkiomen Jet. and Emnaus Jet., without in fact

discontinuing the work previously performed at

Emmaus Jet. by the three towermen at that point

._ and transferred the work of those, Positions and _

assigned the performance of the ls'ame to employes

not covered by the agreement between the Reading _

Company and The Order of Railroad Telegraphers.

2, Carrier shall be required to compensate J. Goelz,

R. Siminitis, E. Ulrich for eight hours for each

and every date beginning July 21, 1959 and on all ._

subsequent dates when, in violation of the agree-.

meat, the extra raen were not called to,copy train

orders which were formerly copied by towermen prior

to February 12, 1958, at which time the I.C.C.

permitted the Reading Company to close E.aus.Jct.;

3. This work formerly performed by the three towermen

at Dnmaus Jet., Pa., shall be restored to the

Telegraphers' Agreement performed only by employes

coming within,the scope of the Telegraphers'

Agreement.

»8»

..~ SBA ~°ll -,Aura a--I

4_ Carrier shall be required to compensate Paul Yordy . at Perkiomen Jct. an amount equal to one call, under the -agreement, for each and every, slate asset forth above and all subsequent dates when, in violation of the agreement, he was deprived of the

. work to which he was entitled 7.n handling such

train orders.

5, Further, carrier should be required to permit joint check of records to ascertain;-dates when such sing-

= sequent violations occurred. -.

(T). George Pollash was suspended from his assignment on

September 24, 1st trick TR' Tower and required to work

2nd trick tRUt, Rutherford, on September 23, 24, 25, 26,

27, 30'and October 1, 2, 1959.,-in violation of the..,.

Telegraphers' Agreement, Articles 19 and 7 (c) and

8 (a). , .

Because of this suspension in violation of Article 7 (c), herewith enter claim in favor of Mr. Pollash for eight hours account being suspended from his regular assignment of rate of position scheduled to work September 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and October 1, 2, 3, 4 ,1959, or nine days at $2.668 per hour, $192.10 total amount9 under Article 7 (c).

'. Also because. of this suspension herewith enter claim in

favor of Mr. Pollash as in Artielap8 (a) for September .

23', 24, 25, 26, 27, 30 and October 1 and 2, 1959, at

time and one-half for service performed on these dates_

He was compensated at the time and one-half rate for

September, 27 and compensated at straight time rate on.

23, 24, 25, 26, 30, October 1 and 2, and, therefore,,,,

4 hours is due at pro rata rate of $2.668 per hours '

7 days 28 hours $74.70, total amount undex.Ar-ticle 8 (a).

2. Carrier shall be required to allow the claims listed ,above as presented,"

FINDINGS: It is conceded that Claims (A) and (B) are barred by the
provisions of Section 1 (c) of Article V of the August 21,
1954 Agreement..

Claims (C) through (G) were appealed to the General Manager

of the Carrier on February 4, 1960 and his decision was required

to be given within 60 days, or by April 4, 1960. *The decisions

were dated April 41, 1960, but the F'mployes exhibit an envelope _

in which received which is postmarked April 7, 1960:, The"'

Carrier asserts that the letters of decision were signed and,.

mailed in the normal course of business on April 4, 1960, but

does not present any statement by anyone who mailed them..

9

. . - ,._, S~ ~gl - /~w~ of

To establish compliance with the time- limit rule notice requirement, in the event the decision is sent through the mail, it is at least necessary to show affirmatively that the notice was deposited in the U.S. mail with postage prepaid within the time limited. Since theie is nq such evidence in this case, these claims must be. sustained to 'the extent provided in the time limit rule.

Claims (H) through (T) were appealed to the General Manager of the Carrier on various dates from October 1, 1959 to February 4, 1960. No written notice of denial was given by him. The Carrier asserts that there was an oral agreement and understanding between the General Chairman.and the GeneralManager's representative extending the time limits of the ' claims for the duration of discussions in connection there: with. The taployes deny that there was any such agreement or understanding and assert that extensions of time limits have ' always been handled in writing and from one fixed date to ' another fixed date.

The party relying upon an alleged oral agreement,-to waive the time limits provided by the August 21, 1954 Agree. ment, has the burden to prove it and, under the circumstances set forth in these submissions, the Carrier has not met that ., burden. Accordingly these claims must be-sustained.to the

extent provided in the tine limit rule.;

AWARD: Claims (A) and (B) are dismissed. ,

Claims (C) through (T) are sustained to the extent provided in' Article V of the August 21, 1954,Agreement.

SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 591

/s/ Dudley E. Whiting

DUDLEY E. WRITING, CHAIR MAN,~

/s/ John T. Finnegan

V. W. Bigelow

JOHN T. FINNEGAN V. W. BIGELOW

Organization Member Carrier Member

PHILADELPHIA, PA.y

JAN 10 1966

a' .

_10..