a matter of fact, the Division Chairman is employed in the Superintendent's office and a conerence could have been arranged on 5 minutes' notice. Mr. Thompson who held position of stevedore was permitted to remain on the new position of station baggageman until after position had been bulletined and filled and Mr. Thompson last worked on the position at Amarillo, December 2nd. Mr. Thompson, therefore, was not really affected for a period of 19 days after notice was given of te change. The employes asked for no conference during this time.

"There is no warrant for the charge made by the employes that the position of stevedore was not properly discontinued.

"There is no question of adjustment in rate of pay involved in this case and it was not necessary to confer with the Committee as to making adjustment in rates of any employes for any of the positions referred to.

"As we have previously said the claim of L. R. Brown, station helper at Erick, W. B. Snider and F. Bieganowski and other employes, are not being discussed because their claims are predicated wholly on the claim of former stevedore Thompson and the claim for these employes will naturally follow any decision made in Mr. Thompson's case.

"In conclusion we have clearly shown as to the principles involved in the numerous claims that first, there is no limitation placed upon the carrier in the clerks' contract with respect to assigning work which is being performed by one class 1 employe on a call to another class 1 employe who holds a regularly assigned position. Second, there has been no violation of Rule 27 the interpretation thereto or the very plain award of your Board in Docket CL-959 previously referred to in assigning work formerly handled by a Class 3 man to a Class 1 man, when no other class three men were employed at the station. To the contrary, that rule as interpreted by the parties to the contract and by your Board, was fully complied with. Third, the position of stevedore at Amarillo was not improperly discontinued."

OPINION OF BOARD: The agreement here involved is the same agree ment as that in Award 956, and carries the same interpretation of Rule 27.

The facts, most favorable to the Carrier, disclose that Baggageman Morgan at Amarillo, Texas, assigned hours 3:00 P. M. to 11 :00 P. M., was required to handle the baggage and mail each morning for trains 51 and 112, and for this service was paid on the basis of a call or a minimum of three hours. The Carrier on November 15, 1939, created the new position of second baggageman and assigned to this position the work of trains 51 and 112, and in addition assigned to this position part of the stevedore work of a full-time stevedore position which was abolished concurrently with the establishment of baggageman No. 2; also one hour of the work of this abolished stevedore position was assigned to baggageman No. 1. Baggagemen are carried on the class 1 seniority roster and stevedores on the class 3 seniority roster.

Award 956 is not controlling. The facts as disclosed in that award show that all the work of the abolished position, except three hours' work turned over to the crew caller, was turned over to other employes of the same class, and it was held this action was within the meaning of the interpretation of Rule 27. But the situation disclosed by the facts now before us is entirely different. Here the entire work of this full-time stevedore, class 3, position was assigned to baggagemen, class 1, positions. To hold that this action was within the meaning of the interpretation of Rule 27 would be to hold that the interpretation constituted a nullification of this Rule. obviously, it was not so intended. To use the language of the interpretation of Rule 27, "the purpose and intent of the Clerks' contract is to segregate the various classes (See classes 1, 2, and 3, Rule 27) of duties as far as conditions will permit." While the use of the phrase "as far as conditions will permit" relaxed any rigid rule of classification, it did not and was not intended to defeat the very purpose for which the classifications were made. We are convinced that the action of the Carrier was a violation of the intent and purpose of the Rule and the interpretation thereof.

In claim (1) Baggageman Morgan is claiming pay on a call basis for the work in connection with trains 51 and 112. This claim must be denied. There was no violation of the agreement in establishing baggageman position No. 2. The violation consisted in assigning the stevedore work to baggagemen.

In claim (2) Thompson claims reimbursement for loss because of being deprived of stevedore work at Amarillo when this work was improperly assigned to baggagemen. This claim should be allowed.

In claim (3) Brown claims reimbursement for loss sustained on being displaced by Thompson. It appears that Thompson would not have displaced Brown except for the unwarranted act of the Carrier in depriving Thompson of the stevedore work. This claim, therefore, should be allowed.

In claim (4) reimbursement is claimed for the same work for which we have allowed reimbursement to Thompson. This claim should be denied

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 respectively 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

That the Carrier in abolishing the stevedore, elms 3, position and assigning the work to baggagemen, class 1 positions, violated the intent and purpose of Rule 27 and the interpretation thereof.

AWARD