`DOCKET ITO, 4 ' : f ~

      " GB.DIV.:1 ' 3298

                SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. $91 ,t .,·> : I;

          F

          · THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS ' ': , ,.,. : '`.

          VS., ', t:,


                READING COMPANY - ·' .. ;.


STATEMENT
 OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of The Order of, Railroad

 · Telegraphers on the Reading Company, that:
 .w
          1. Carrier violated and continues to violate the Agreement when it requires or permits employes not covered by .the Agreement to handle train orders and messages at Rupert,

          (::

          Pennsylvania,


          2, Carrier shall compensate the senior idle employe, extra .. r;

          in preference, in the amount of a day'-s pay (8 hours) each V,(;;

          day the violation occurs, commencing April 28,, 1960 and

          continuing thereafter on a day-to-day basis until the vio, 'F

          lation is corrected.~T


FINDINGS: The last telegrapher position at Rupert-was abolished
 on July 16, 1958. Thereafter train'orders·were delivered
 to train crews there, when occasionally necessary,;., by tele
 phone from the operator at Milton tower, ;

              There is no contention that Article 34, the train order.., ,:·f;

          rules, is violated. Rather it is contended that all train ::,-_

          order work is reserved to telegraphers by the scope rule

          and that Article 34 is an exception thereto. · i ::

          The scope rule lists positions, not work.,"t Such scope

          rules have been interpreted by the Third Division," N.R.A.B.

          to comprehend work customarily assigned exclusively to and '"

          performed by those positions. Here it appears that wayside' ~:ii,

          phones were used in the manner and for the purpose involved

          in. this case prior to the first agreement with the Organiz

          ation in 1946, and have been so used in the ensuing years.

          Moreover it is clear,that Article 34 is not an exception

          .to the scope rule,, but the only specific reservation of work k,

          provision in the agreement, Under these circumstances the

          scope rule ;does not support that contention,.:',,--.,-.,


                ..."i.1.,F.


                              . yl t,


_ ,. ., ." . ., ._ _ . -~. '·;i~` t t ·; _ 1:
 AWARD: Claim denied;
 r

 PHILADELPHIA; PA.

 /s/ John T. Finnegan
 JOHN T. FINNEGAN Dissenting"
 Organization Member''_'

 SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NQ. 591

 /c/ n,aEi.v F-DUDLEY ;E.

 WHI I~I, CHAIRMAN

 . I~f ~ l O 19f;g
          ,


r c1

 $(A ~

 /s/ Vf W, Bigelow
 V, W., BIGELOW
 -,carrier Member