OPINION OF BOARD: The position of Yard Clerk here involved was established by Bulletin No. 50, September 30, 1937, and was filled each day of the week except Sunday, until December 3. After the occupant thereof reported for duty at 10:00 P. M., December 2, 1937, Carrier notified him verbally that with the termination of his tour of duty at 6:00 A. M., December 3, his position would be abolished under Rule 19, due to a decrease in the number of cars of coal to be billed out. Position was restored and the former occupant reassigned thereto effective December 7, 1937.

It will, therefore, be noted that Clerk Fetters, the affected employe, received less than eigt hours' notice of. the fact that the force was being reduced by the abolishment of his position. It is also shown that written notice, as contemplated in Rule 19, was not given, or was the Local Chairman given copy thereof, also provided for by this rule. The only reason the Carrier gives for its conduct in abolishing this position is the fact that there was a decrease in business and carrier considered it necessary to affect economies in operation.

The record shows that the falling off in coal loadings, claimed to warrant the action taken, was in evidence as far back as November 24, 1937, and no good reason appears why he should not have been given some advance notice in the intervening period between then and December 2.

The situation in the instant case was much like that involved in Award 590; it was necessary for the employe to place himself elsewhere, to do which he immediately made two efforts, but before he could locate, the Management recognized that the abolition of his position December 3, was premature.

Notice such as was given is in effect no advance notice at all and to hold it to be a compliance with the third paragraph of Rule 19 would be to write the rule out of the agreement.

With no intention of establishing a fixed interpretation of the rule as requiring any particular number of days' notice as being requisite in any and all circumstances, the Board finds that in the instant case no reasonable effort was made to comply with the rule.

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 employe involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe 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

That the carrier violated the provisions of the current agreement, as indicated by Opinion.

AWARD