OPINION OF BOARD: This claim is based on the abolishing by the Carrier of the position of telegrapher-cashier at Nocona, Texas, on Octobei 1, 1930, and consolidating it with the position of agent, and abolishing the position of telegrapher-cashier at Itasca, Texas, on December 17, 1930, and consolidating it with the position of agent-telegrapher at Itasca.

In connection with the position at Nocona listed as "Agent-Telegrapher" in the agreement between the parties, effective August 1, 1928, the General Committee submits that this title was a typographical error, that it should have read "Agent." At the time the rate of pay for the Agent at Nocona was negotiated into the agreement, the agency position did not require the performance of telegraph duties as was necessary following the consolidation. However, as no objection to the correction has been made by the Carrier, the Board assumes that the parties are in agreement on that subject.

The General Committee of the Order of Railroad Telegraphers bases its contentions in this claim on Article 5-(b) of the agreement between the parties which reads, "When two positions are consolidated, the higher rate will apply."

The Carrier cites Rule 5-(a) and (b) and Article 6-(a) and (b) and submits that there was no change in classification of the employes affected by reason of taking the work previously performed by the cashier-telegraphers and that when the positions of cashier-telegrapher were discontinued, conditions reverted to the same as existed prior to the creation of cashier-telegrapher positions.

According to the facts presented in this dispute, each of the parties are in agreement that when the telegrapher-cashier positions were discontinued or abolished the duties formerly performed by the telegrapher-cashiers were taken over by the agent-telegraphers. The Carrier contends that under such circumstances there was no consolidation of positions as claimed by the General Committee, but simply two positions were abolished and the work thereafter performed by the agents, which was properly a part of their duties and responsibilities.

Considering this contention of the Carrier, the Board submits that, while no change in this classification of positions was made or acknowledged by the Carrier in so far as the titles of the positions are concerned, the fact that the duties of the former telegrapher-cashier were added to the existent duties of the agent or agent-telegraphers constitutes evidence in fact that a consolidation of the positions did take place.

Insofar as the rules cited are concerned, Article 5-(b) is specific in its requirements that when two positions are consolidated the higher rate will apply. Insofar as paragraph (a) of Article 5 is concerned, there is no application in this paragraph to the conditions of this instant claim and paragraph (b) of that rule is controlling. As for Article 6, paragraphs (a) and (b), these paragraphs, similar to paragraph (a) of Article 5, have no bearing on the subject at issue as the two positions at the stations indicated and classified in the Telegraphers' agreement were combined and consolidated in fact and, in accordance with Article 5, paragraph (b), the higher rate should have been applied.

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 and the employes involved in this dispute are respecttively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

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

264

AWARD