NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the Union Pacific Railroad Company, Eastern District, that:
]EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is an agreement as to rules governing working conditions and rates of pay, bearing effective date November 1, 1947, in effect between the parties to this dispute.
The position of agent-telegrapher at Aida, Nebraska, rated $1.19 per hour' is covered by the Agreement between the parties and listed in the wage scale at page 5. This position has been covered by said Agreement, continuously since August 1, 1892 until vacated (not abolished) on July 23, 1949. It is a one-man station on the Union Pacific Railroad located approximately 8 miles west of Grand Island, Nebraska.
At the time the Carrier declared this position abolished, M. L. Hensley was the regularly assigned incumbent thereof, with assigned hours 7:15 A. M. to 4:15 P. M. one hour out for lunch, six days per week.
'Not including national increases applied subsequent to November 1, 1947.
It is hereby affirmed that all information and data herein set forth have been furnished to, discussed with, or are known to the Employes' Organization or the Claimants.
OPINION OF BOARD: This case is concerned with a claim that the respondent Carrier violated its Agreement with The Order of Railroad Telegraphers when the position of agent-telegrapher was abolished at Aldo, Nebraska on July 23, 1949. It is contended by the petitioner that the Carrier abolished the position at Alda without in fact abolishing the work of the position. It is contended further that such work has since July 23, 1949 been performed and is now being performed by persons having no contractual right to the work.
The petitioner argues that all work performed by the former agenttelegrapher at Alda was work belonging exclusively to the Telegraphers' Organization as provided in the Scope Rule.
This record reveals a situation where business had declined to the point where the Carrier believed it necessary to discontinue the Aida position at issue. Accordingly, an application was filed with the Nebraska State Railway Commission asking approval for the discontinuance of the Agency. In due course the Commission issued its order granting the Carrier's request. Shortly thereafter the Carrier proceeded to make effective the discontinuance of the Agency, which action gave rise to the instant dispute.
As shown above, the petitioner relies upon the proposition that the work previously performed by the agent-telegrapher at Alda continues to exist and is performed presently by employes of other crafts.
The record shows beyond dispute that the duties of the agent-telegrapher at Alda had declined until there was not sufficient work remaining to occupy anywhere near the full time of the incumbent. The Carrier asserts that the remaining duties would not require more than one hour per day to perform. While the petitioner challenges this assertion, no real evidence is submitted to disprove the Carrier's statement on this score.
It is admitted that since the discontinuance of the position some duties, mostly clerical, remain to be performed from the station in Grand Island. However, the petitioner has not shown that any of these can be said to be historically exclusive duties of the Telegrapher craft.
This Division has rendered a substantial number of Awards dealing with Carrier actions in discontinuing such positions as the one at Alda. These Awards have generally recognized the right of the Carrier to discontinue a position where the work of that position declines to the point where a substantial part of the employe's time is not occupied with the duties of the position. Awards 439, 4759, 4385, 5127, 5283, 5318. Evidence of record here certainly shows that there was such a decline in duties at Aida.
There is no showing in the record that any of the remaining duties at Aida can be said to be duties which Telegraphers have the exclusive right to perform on the basis of either the Scope Rule or tradition and practice on this property.
Under these circumstances, and in view of the holdings of the cited Third Division Awards, an affirmative Award is not justified.
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: 5719-29 221