craft cannot be taken from that craft and assigned to an employe covered by another agreement."

The Carrier respectfully asserts that the handling complained of in the instant dispute was not violative of either the Scope rule or Article II of the Telegraphers' Agreement. The Carrier also has no knowledge of any awards of the Adjustment Board which would serve to support the Employes claim in the instant dispute. It has repeatedly been held by the Third Division that the Scope Rule of an agreement does not cover work, but simply defines the type and class of employes covered by the agreement, and the language of the Scope Rule of the Telegraphers' Agreement here involved clearly supports that conclusion.

Article II-(a) simply provides that employes covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement will be classified in accordance with the duties or service performed, while Article II-(b) prescribes the manner in which the rates of pay of new positions shall be determined. There was no change in the classification of an employe covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement at Florence, Kansas in the instant dispute, and none was required under the terms of Article II-(a). A new telegraph service position was not established, benee Article II-(b) was likewise inapplicable and has no bearing whatever on the instant dispute. There is nothing in either the Scope Rule or Article II which prohibits or otherwise restricts the right of the Carrier to abolish a telegraph service position such as Telegrapher-Clerk Position No. 59.0 and reassign the work of that position to another telegraph service position such as the Agent-Telegrapher Position No. 580 at Florence. There is likewise nothing contained in those rules which, either by inference or otherwise, prohibits the Carrier from transferring clerical work from a telegraph service position to a clerical position subject to the Clerks' Agreement. As a matter of fact, the instant claim is the first occasion on which the complainant organization representatives have ever advanced a contention that the transfer of clerical work from a telegraph service position to a clerical position subject to the Clerks' Agreement was violative of the Telegraphers' Agreement, notwithstanding that identical transfers of clerical work have repeatedly occurred on this property throughout the years. The foregoing is likewise true with regard to the transfer of the duties and work of an abolished telegraph service position to another telegraph service position.

The Third Division has repeatedly held that, unless it can be shown that the claim involved in a dispute is supported by the agreement rules cited by the complainant organization, it must be denied. Such a showing cannot be made in the instant dispute, and the claim is entirely without support under the agreement rules relied upon to the Employes. As to the awards of the Adjustment Board which the organization representatives failed to identify in the handling of the instant dispute on the property, the respondent carrier is without knowledge of any awards which would serve to support the Employes' contention. The Board's attention is, however, respectfully directed to the fact that the duties or work which were transferred from the AgentTelegrapher covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement to the occupant of the Cashier uocition covered by the Clerks' Agreement in the instant dispute was clerical work, the performance of which is not and has never been a monopoly right of telegraph service employes covered 'by the Telegraphers' Agreement.

All that. is contained herein is either known or available to the employes or their representatives.

(Exhibit not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: Involved here is a claim arising out of an alleged violation of the presently effective Agreement, dated June 1, 1951. The complaint concerns the discontinuance or abolishment of the TelegrapherClerk, first trick position, and the re-assignment of the duties of this position to the position of Agent-Telegrapher and Cashier-Clerk.

The positions of both Agent-Telegrapher and Cashier-Clerk were reclassified, the former being under this Agreement and the latter under the Scope of he Agreement between the Respondent and the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks.

It is argued that this Board is without authority to proceed on the merits here in the absence of a notice to the employe or employes covered by the last above named Agreement who possibly could be affected by a final determination of the issue presented.

There is no doubt that the position of Cashier-Clerk is not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement.

This jurisdictional question has been passed on in earlier awards of this Division, 5432, 5433, 5599, 5600 and 5644. Therein it was determined that the Board was without power or authority to proceed or act on the merits of a claim, when it appeared that employes having rights that might be affected by a decision of this Board, were not served with notice of the existence of a claim, and given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings.

The above-mentioned awards all lay down the principle that notice under Section 3, First (j), of the Railway Labor Act is required.

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

For the reasons and on the basis stated here and in prior awards of this Board this claim is hereby dismissed without prejudice.

AWARD