clerk at Girard was retained. The carrier described his activities in terms similar to those here: He checked the yards, received and billed out freight, and delivered freight, the expense bills for which were prepared at Youngstown. He handled no accounting, the accounts having been transferred to Youngstown as in this case they were transferred to Butler. The employees requested that the station at Girard be handled by an assistant agent at the rate of pay (sixty-Trine cents) of the assistant agent at Akron whose duties were alleged to be the same as those remaining to be performed at Girard. In Case No. 2, Session of March 29, 1932, the board made the following decision:

"The board sustains the position of the committee in so far as the designation should be that of assistant agent and so advertised under the terms of the telegraphers' agreement, but sees no reason for changing the present rate of pay and feels that the basic rate of sixty-five cents per hour should be continued."

This decision can only rest upon the ground that agency work remained to be done at Girard despite the transfer of accounts to Youngstown, and that therefore since the agency had been placed under the Telegraphers' Agreement the work should be done raider the Telegraphers' Agreement. In holding that the rate of pay should remain at that of the clerk, the board seems to have been assuming the role of a mediator rather than that of a quasi-judicial body engaged simply in interpreting and applying an agreement. However that may be and whatever importance may be attached to the fact that the employees asked only for the position of assistant agent, the fact remains that in granting this request the board must have concluded that the agency work had not been abolished.

In another case before the -,line board involving substantially tile same factors, in connection with the abolition of the agency at west Salisbury and tile transfer of the accounts to Meyeredale, the board again sustained the position of the employees that the work handled by the remaining clerk should be placed under a properly qualified employee covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement. This case has been fully described in Award No. 233, Docket TN1-236, rendered by this Division.

Both the Girard and the West Salisbury cases were decided by the Telegraphors' Adjustment Board in 1932. A year previously tile board had decided a somewhat similar clue in a different manner. (Case No. 3, Session July 28, 29, 30, 7931). In that case the regular agent at Hillsdale left the service and the vacancy was advertised on September u, 1929, "with the understanding that the station may be closed in the near future find accounts placed under the direction of the agent at Montezuma," On October 1, 1929, Singleton, the euccessinl bidder for the agency, reported, and for the next month, at the end of which period he was transferred back to Montezuma, he did the same Identical work as had been done by the former agent except that he signed the Montezuma agent's name, the accounts apRnrently having been transferred before he reported for service. Although lie was doing the same work as had been done before, he was, during the month of bis incumbency, paid at the rate of a clerk. On November 1, when he wtls transferred back to Montezuma as a clerk, the vacancy was bulletined as that of a clerk's position and it was bid in by another clerk. Shortly prior thereto on October 19. before Singleton had left to go back to Montezuma, The Public Utilities Commission of Indiana authorized the closing of the agency. The employees asked that the position of exclusive agent at Hillsdale be restored and pointed out that tile existing incumbent, the clerk who had taken Singleton', place. was in substance acting asi an agent; that he was bonded and acting as agent for the express company; and that the station had never been closed lnrt was open for passengers, freight, express, and United States mail. Nevertheless the board decide(] merely that Singleton should be paid the difference between the rate of an agent and the rate of a clerk "until the accounts nt Hillsdale were consolidated or absorbed with tile Montezuma accounts or after the Public U4ilities Commission of Indiana had officially authorized the closing of Hillsdale station:" Since the case seems to have indicated that the accounts were consolidated oil or before tile date that Singleton reported for work, it would appear that he got nothing from flip decision because the reference to the action by the Public Utilities Cnlnlnissian, which took place a few weeks later. was pill in the alternative instead of the conjunctive. It is hard to understand the theory of the decision unless the board was influenced by tile fact that ill the advertising of tile vacant agency position, bidder's were warned that the station might be closed

273

In the near future and the accounts transferred to Montezuma and that having accepted the position in the face of this warning, the successful bidder could not complain if the accounts were transferred. The fact remains, however, that the request by the employees for the restoration of the agency was denied and that Hillsdale was allowed to remain in the hands of a clerk.

The two subsequent decisions in the Girard and West Salisbury cases are squarely to the contrary although made by identically the same board composed of identically the same members. Moreover, the board seems to have thought its decisions to be consistent for is the West Salisbury case, the latest of the three, the board said in sub,tance that the same question hall been passed upon in two prior decisions and hurt the board ought not to be asked repeatedly to pass upon the same issue. Perhaps the discrepancy between the Hillsdale case find the other two can be explained and can only be explained on the ground that in the former the Public Utilities Commission had officially authorized the closing of, the agency, whereas there was no such official action ht the other rive cases. But it is hard to see just why this should make much difference since the station at IIillsdale remained open for passengers, freight, express, and United States mail. In the present case sit East Butler no official action of any sort has been taken. The Pennsylvania law apparently requires the posting of a notice when an agency is to be closed in order to give patrons an opportunity to protest to the public Utilities Cornmissinn if they wish to protest. But it appears from the record that no such notice has ever been posted.

Whatever view is taken of the Hillsdale case It seems to us that the two sub,cequent eases decided by the same board in one of which the facts were indistinguishable from those in the East Butler case, represent the controlling view of the Telegraphers' Adjustment Board. Since the carrier had equal representation on that board find ,joined in these decisions we think the decisions must be given weight as indicating the common understanding of the parties in situations such as that now before our board. Since our function is to apply the agreement between the parties the interpretation which they themselves, through their oven board, have placed upon it should not lightly be disregarded by our board.

1f we are to follow that interpretation we will have to say that the work now performed by the cleric at East Butler is really agency work. To this the carrier replies that the clerk is lit fact performing no duties that he had not previously performed when there was an agent at East Butler, and that once a clerk always a clerk unless his duties are enlarged. The same argument was made by the carrier in its submission to the Telegraphers' Adjustment Board in the West Salisbury case, and no doubt the theory of the board in ruling against the carrier was floor whcu an agent is taken from a station and the clerk is put in sole charge, his responsibilities, while not in theory enlarged (since he must still report to an agent at another station) are in fact enlarged, and take on the character of those of an agent. But if we accept the carrier's contention, which secrns to have been rejected by its own representatives on the Adjustment Board, and say that the clerk's responsibilities have not been enlarged in fact by being left in sole charge of the station, another difficulty presents itself, for it then follows that the responsibilities and duties of the l.gemt have been assigned to the supervisory agent at Butler, who is an em ployee not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement.

If we say that, we cannot distinguish the case in principle from Award No. 94, Docket TE-16l, rendered by this board on September 24, 1936, without a referee. For in that case it was held improper to remove agents at Paubody and Beverly, Mass., and assign their work to it general agont fit Salem who was not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement. It is true that the general urgent at Salem spent some time daily at Peabody and at Beverly taking care of the agency work, whereas the agent at Butler to whom the East Butler agency duties had been assigned C,oes not find it necessary to spend time at East Butler, the work being handled partly at his desk at Butler and partly through the cleric at East Butler. But we do not think this difference is one of- substance. Since Fast Butler is still open for the handling of freight in flip normal way, some agent must be responsible for the word., find the mere fact that the agent to whom the responsibility has been assigned does not find it mcoasary to go physically to the station cannot make any difference or disguise the filet that responsibilities formerly in the hands of an employee under the agreement have been transferred to one outside the agreement. It is true also that no physical changes were made in the stations at Peabody and Beverly,

274

the passenger business, telegraphy, and no doubt other functions remaining and being carried on as before, whereas at East Butler nothing remains but the freight business. But we think the difference is only one of degree. The freight business is the most important part of the business and so long as it remains unchanged some agent must be assigned to take care of it and he responsible for it, and the discontinuance of other activities is of no sigm(ieance except that it makes the agency job relatively less important than before. The principle decided in TE-161 is that an agent under the agreement cannot be eliminated by assigning his duties to an agent not under the agreement, and the mere fact that the duties so assigned are less onerous than before because of the discontinuance of certain station activities cannot affect the principle, which is founded upon the scope rule of the agreement and the agency positionv scheduled thereunder.

To sutn up: If we take the view of the Telegraphers' Adjustment Board that the clerk who was left in sole charge of the station is really doing agency work, then it follows that the assignment under the agreement is an improper one and that the agency duties should be performed by an employee under the agreement. If on the other hand we take the view that the clerk 1a doing no more than clerk's work and that the agency duties have been assigned to the agent at Butler, who is not under the agreement, the assignment is improper under TIr161, and the duties should be assigned to an employee covered by the agreement Which of these two views is sound we need not now decide, far each leads to the same result.

The only reinstating question concerns the classification and rate of pay of the position which should be bulletined at East Butler under the Telegraphers' Agreement. In the Girard Case the employees asked and were granted the position of assistant agent, though at the rate of pay of the clerk who presumably was to be displaced. In the West Salisbury case no specific clagsiflr_ation was asked for, or mentioned in the decision. In the case now before us the employees have asked that the position of agent be restored at the scheduled rate. We think the request must be granted, for though the duties of the agent have very materially lessened as a result of the curtailment of activities at East Butler, we have no authority to change classifications or rates in the agreement, and the only position scheduled for East Butler Is that of agent at the rate of 79%2 per hour. Any adjustment of the classification and rate due to changed conditions must be left to the parties to ne^_otiate.

One final contention of the carrier must be noted. After the decision in the Girard case, the clerks' organization protested the abolishment of the clerks position which followed that decision, and Presented a claim to the carrier which is still pending. The carrier is fearful that if the claim of the employees in the lnesent case is sustained and an agent is substituted for the clerk at East Butler there will be a similar protest and claim by the clerk's organization, but this fear is groundless, for this decision settles the matter so far as this case is concerned.

The carrier bas cited as authority U. S. Railroad Labor Board Decision No. 2194, Docket No. 2711, which is similar in some respects to the present case in that two agencies were consolidated, but differs in the important respect that the agent to whom the work was transferred, and the telegrapher-apprentice who was placed at the discontinued agency, were both under the Telegraphers' Agreement. The employees on their part have cited 11. S. Railroad Labor Board Decision ND. 2666, Dockets 2258 et al., ,July 10, 1924, in which, after a consolidation of several stations under the supervision of a head anent, it was held improper tender the agreement with the telegraphers to establish the position of clerk at each of these stations, the clerk signing the name of the adjacent a°ent to relrorts and conducting the work under his name. but the duties otherwise being substantially those of the displaced agents. Whatever weight may be given to these two cases we think the decisions of the Telegraphers' Adjustment Board and of this board, heretofore cited, should be controlling.