ment and then if it decreases, it may be returned to the position to which it is incident.

In view of the foregoing to sustain the claim of the organization for reinstatement of the position would be unjust because it would require the carrier to establish a position it did not need. Moreover, it would result in increasing the amount of unassigned time of the station force employes at Dodge City and result in paying employes for services not rendered.

Inasmuch as the telegraphers are parties in interest, they should be notified by the Board of the pendency of these proceedings in a legally sufficient manner.

It is the position of the carrier that the claims in this docket are unsupported by proper construction of the rules of the agreement, particularly that construction which is consistent with the awards of this Board. Therefore we respectfully petition the Board to deny these claims.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: From the wording of this claim as submitted it would appear that the Employes are asserting a violation of the Clerks' Agreement because of the abolishment of a position of Night Freight Clerk at Dodge City on February 6, 1950 and assigning of a large portion of clerical work of that position to the Agent stationed at that point.

We have read and re-read the record in an attempt to determine what that work was and whether or not a transfer of same was made on the abolishment of the Night Freight Clerk's position. It is not surprising, however, that our efforts in that direction were unavailing for in the Employes' Rebuttal Brief we find that the Employes state: "The claim filed b., Mr. Bolding for six hours and fifty-five minutes is for time the Agent has been re-assigned clerical work after we were advised April, 1948, the clerical work had been removed from the Agent."

It appears from the record that a settlement was made between the Carrier and the Employes about April 5, 1948 in connection with the performance of clerical work by the Agent at this station involved herein. It appears to be contended by the Employes in their Rebuttal Brief that the Carrier has not lived up to the understanding reached at that time. Clearly, the claim asserted in the Employes' Rebuttal Brief and the claim contained in the notice of intention and Employes' submission are at complete variance.

We find no evidence of the assignment of six hours and fifty-five minutes of clerical work to the Agent beginning on or after February 6, 1950. The only item of clerical work which the evidence submitted by the Employes indicates was assigned to the Agent after the abolishment of the Night Clerk's position was ten minutes required in making some waybills in case of over9ow. The Employes admit they did not desire to be technical and question such a small amount.

On the basis of this record it is clear that we have no alternative but to deny the claim as asserted. It should be clear, however, that this is not determinative of the propriety or impropriety f assignments of clerical work to the Agent's position following the April 1948 settlement. The record here, despite its inordinate voluminousness, isn't developed with sufficient relevancy to that question to permit of a decision thereon, even if we were to determine that the claim as asserted is sufficient to justify its consideration.

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

AWARD