SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 591


              TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES UNION


                          VS.


              READING COMPANY


STATEMENT
 OF CLAIM: "I. The Reading Company violated and continues to violate
 our current Agreement by permitting and/or requiring em
 ployees (clerks), who are not included in the "scope" of
 our Agreement, to perform "communications of record work"
 (OS'ing trains, etc.), at Richmond, located in the Train
 master's building on the Richmond Branch, Philadelphia
 Division. The violations were committed on the dates
 listed below, among others, shown on Attached Exhibit A.
 2. In consequence of the violation listed above, the
 Reading Company is required to pay to those Claimants
 listed on the attached Exhibit B, one (1) day's pay, for
 each day (shift), at the minimum daily, tower rate on the
 Division, for the following dates: January 18, 19, 20,
 21, 22, 23 and 24, 1965. (Eight (8) hours pay for each
 eight (8) hour shift, or three (3) days pay for each day
 of violation).
 3. In consequence of the violation listed above, the
 Reading Company is required to restore this work to
 employees listed under the "scope" of our current
 Agreement.
 4. This claim is being entered as a "continuing claim,"
 as provided for in the Aug ust 21, 1954 Agreement, section
 V (3), for those dates subsequent to January 24, 1965,
 in favor of the senior idle Telegrapher (extra in prefer
 ence), as though they were listed in item 2 above to be
 paid on the same basis as outlined therein, for each
 continuing date until violation is either corrected or
 discontinued. A joint check of Company records to be
 held to determine Claimants, dates, amounts due, etc."

 FINDINGS: It appears that for over 30 years the crew clerk at
 Port Richmond has reported train times to the dispatcher
 on the telephone. This practice antedates the Telegraphers'
 Agreement, made in 1946. In our Awards Nos. 4 and 5 we
 interpreted the scope rule. Accordingly it is not possible
 now to find that the work performed by those crew clerks
 is a violation of the Telegraphers' Agreement.
 r -- Sa.9 ~9/- 9~0 3~
 r' DCV- 'KET N0. 35
 In other situations of this kind it has been accepted
 that the telephone communications by the clerk should be
 ' made through an operator at an open station rather than
 directly with the dispatcher. The long continued practice
 precludes any monetary claim but does not bar an award
 requiring that procedure prospectively.
 AWARD: Claim denied, except that hereafter the crew clerk
 at Port Richmond shall communicate by telephone with an
 operator subject to the telegraphers' agreement instead
 of directly with the dispatcher.

                        SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO.591

                        I


      I DUDLE E. WHITING,-C IRMAN

                  i


                              0


Organizati Member Carrier" ber

 f

          DATED: March 24, 1966.


    h