The orders were issued to the pusher crew at Falls City-a train order telegraph office. They were transmitted by the Dispatcher at Atchison to the telegraphers at Falls City who made the manual delivery of the orders to the train crew. As matter of fact, the delivery of these orders by the telegraph operators at Falls City was to the same crew that made the return trip from Baker and the orders delivered to the crew at Falls City governed its return movement into Baker to Falls City.

The Management denies the contention of the Employes that the handling of these train orders at Falls City violated in any manner whatsoever the provisions of Rule 1 (b) of the agreement between the Carrier and the Telegraphers' Organization dated June 1, 1942. .

OPINION OF BOARD: The facts show that Carrier attempted to discontinue Baker as a train order office and reclassified its position of Agent-Telegrapher to Agent-Restricted Operator. The Organization contends that it transferred the work of handling train orders to employes not under the Agreement so that the reclassification was improper. This presents two questions. First, after the reclassification did Carrier use unauthorized methods in hanling train orders; and, Second, was the reclassification in

It was the custom of Carrier to use a pusher engine on the heavily loaded trains going from Falls City, Nebraska to Baker, Kansas. At Baker the pusher engine was cut off and returned to Falls City.

Before the reclassification the helper crew received its train orders to run extra to Falls City from the Agent at Baker. After the reclassification such train orders were daily delivered to the conductor of the road crew at Falls City who in turn delivered the orders to the helper crew after the train reached Baker. This practice violated the Agreement as this method of delivering train orders is unauthorized. In Award 2926 recently handed down judge Carter reviewed previous awards about the meaning of the phrase "to handle train orders" and held it was now settled that such phrase included their delivery. Awards 1456 and 2087 involved instances of delivering train orders to helper crews, the same as here, and held the method employed in this case was unauthorized. Such must be the ruling in this case and Claim (3) must be sustained.

"RULE 2. (f-2)

"The rates of pay, either hourly or monthly herein tabulated, are fixed with due regard to conditions existing as of the effective date of this agreement, but it shall not preclude the reclassification of agents or agenttelegraphcrs to that of small non-telegraph agents where substantial decreases in the duties and responsibilities of a permanent nature continuously accrue for a reasonable period; neither will it preclude the changing in classification of positions and adjustment in rates of pay to meet substantial changed conditions of a permanent nature for a reasonable period that require increased or decreased duties and responsibilities of employes. Where positions arc reclassified rates of pay established therefor shall be ' fixed in conformity with Rule 2-(b) by agreement between the parties

"RULE 2. (c)

ern Union service, railroad communication service confined exclusivelv to the transmission of car orders and securing reports on the probable arrival of trains for bulletin board information. Where such service is exacted the classification of the agent will be identified as agent-restricted operator and rated 65c per hour.

"NOTE: It is agreed that the communication service herein provided for does nat permit of the handling of train orders and railroad messages of record, the OS'ing of trains and other communications ordinarily handled as between telegraph operators and telegraph operators and dispatchers, except in an emergency; in the latter case the rate of pay for that agency for the day shall be the minimum rate for telegraphers on that division.

It is clear from Rule 2 (f-2) that if the conditions contained therein are observed the Carrier has the right to reclassify positions without first coming to an agreement with the Organization. However that rule does require an agreement between the parties about the rate of pay to be established for the reclassified position. While such requirement is apparently of general application the parties have made an exception to it in the case of an "agent-restricted operator" for whom, under Rule 2 (c) they have already established and agreed upon the rate of 65 cents an hour as therein set out. Under the latter rule no further agreement is necessary in such cases. The question is not before us and we do not rule that the propriety of a reclassification as agent-restricted operator may not be contested by the employes.

A condition precedent to reclassification under Rule 2 (f-2) is that the position has suffered a "substantial decrease in the duties and responsibilities of a permanent nature." The reclassification of the position at Baker was based on the decrease in the duties and responsibilities because of its discontinuance as a train order station. But we find it continued to be used as a train order station as the handling of train orders there was transferred to other employes not under the Agreement. It is obvious the Agreement does not contemplate that a decrease in duties procured in such a manner justifies a reclassification. A reclassification thus obtained is improper.

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 dislmte involved herein; and

AWARD