a full time agency, it is the prerogative of the management to make appropriate changes in the arrangements for taking care of the work. Sometimes the station is closed entirely, and in other cases it is kept open for a few hours of the day, depending upon what arrangements are suitable for the particular conditions. In the case here involved, the conditions were such at two adjoining stations that a full time agency was not justified at either station, but a full time position to serve both stations would take care of the service requirements.

"The situation which arose on the Kankakee Line in April 1935 was nothing new, as similar situations had arisen in territories covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement and had been similarly dealt with."

"As to Article 35: This article has no bearing on the dispute as Articles 12, 20, 24, and 26 clearly provide for changes which may be made during the life of the agreement without involving Article 35. Under those rules, forces may be reduced or increased, the classification or work of positions may be changed, and their rates of pay adjusted if the duties are materially increased or decreased. Article 35 is not susceptible to any such interpretation as the employees seek to apply to it in this instance. It does not in any way limit the right of the management to operate the property economically, either by discontinuing positions no longer necessary or by consolidating positions when no longer necessary on a full time basis.

"If Article 35 does have a bearing in this dispute, it can only be to the extent of requiring the employees to serve thirty days' written notice of their desire to change the rules and the practices that have been recognized thereunder."

OPINION OE BOARD.-In this claim of the General Committee that Agent L. E. Poynter was improperly displaced from his regularly assigned position as Agent-Telephoner at Goodrich, Illinois, on April 17, 1935, by the consolidation of that agency with the station agency at Union Hill, Illinois, various rules from the agreement have been quoted and numerous decisions and agreements have been cited by the parties as having a bearing on the subject at issue.

The basic contention of the General Committee, in its submission is, that this Carrier violated the terms of the agreement between the parties by consolidating the two stations so long as the work continued to exist; and, inasmuch as the positions of Agent-Telephoner had been placed in the schedule, as outlined in the Scope Rule, Article 1 of the agreement between the parties, effective May 16, 1928, and the two positions of Agent-Telephoner which existed at Goodrich and Union Hill prior to April 17, 193.5, were specifically designated in the schedule together with the rates of pay, that the Carrier further violated the terms of the agreement by consolidating the two positions without conference or negotiations with the Committee.

The Carrier submits that prior to the date of the consolidation of the two stations becoming effective, or on April 9, a bulletin was issued to the effect that. "effective April 17, 1935, the position of Agent-Telephoner at each Goodrich and Union Hill stations are abolished and a new position is created at GoodrichUnion Hill." The bulletin further specified a rate of 61 cents per hour for the position and an allowance of $75.00 per month to be added for expense of automobile. It is the contention of the Carries that the issuance of this bulletin constituted the necessary means of cancelling the provisions of the agreement so far as they affected the two agencies specified, and that this action was further confirmed by the subsequent withdrawal of the bulletin, on April 16, 1935, at the request of a representative of the committee, and at which time arrangements were made for the senior of the two men displaced to be assigned to the consolidated agency.

The Carrier farther snhmits a number of decisions and rulings with respect to consolidation of agencies and particularly refers to the System Consolidation Agreement, effective September 1, 1926, proposed by the several General Chairmen of the New York Central Lines, and other dockets and agreements, In support of its contention to the right to abolish or consolidate agencies. In connection with these cases and the various rulings and decisions cited however, many of which cover conditions and consolidations created by the absorption and merging of other lines and interests, the Board submits that the conditions covered by this instant claim are not to be determined by the action taken in cases where stations have been consolidated through the absorp-

313

than or merging of other lines or interests, or for that matter through the varying conditions existing at other points, but that this case, as in the cases cited, must be decided on its merits and without regard to the situations evidenced at other points; and it is on this basis, and this alone, that an equitable decision can be rendered on such disputes as may arise.

In the several submissions which have been made in connection with this claim, the fact is evidenced that while the work at the stations in question had undoubtedly diminished, much if not all of the same character of work formerly performed continued to be done, and many of the requirements for an AgentTelephoner, as originally negotiated into the agreement continued to exist.

In further connection with the conditions evidenced in this instant case, the Board submits that the fact of issning a bulletin abolishing these positions which had been negotiated into an agreement did not constitute and cannot be considered as negotiations between the parties to the agreement. These agreements are binding contracts between the parties, and where through economic or other conditions, stations that have been negotiated into an agreement are to be consolidated such action should only be taken by following the same orderly process of conference and negotiation as when the positions in dispute were placed fn the schedule.

FINDINGS.-The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the carrier slid the employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934:

Thnt this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

That the facts of record constitute a violation of the existing agreement between the parties.

AWARD

Claim sustained subject to deduction of income earned in the exercise of claimant's seniority rights during the period at issue and to be determined through negotiations between the parties to the agreement.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJOSTMSNT BOARD