The rate of pay of $9.295 per day for the Office Girl position was an agreed rate of pay for the work performed by that position and as the position is now doing relatively the same class of work formerly performed on that position prior to its abolishment on March 15, 1949, the rate should not be increased as claimed.

Your Board does not have the authority to require the Carrier to put on positions that are not required and neither does your Board have the right to require the Carrier to pay a clerical rate of pay to a non-clerical position, therefore, this claim should be declined.

The fact that on account of increase in freight claim work and changes in freight claim work, necessitating a readjustment of forces to take care of the increased and decreased business, should not require the Carrier to continue a rate of pay that was establised for a clerical position to a nonclerical position when business returns to normal and work re-assigned to the normal forces before the increase or decrease made necessary a readjustment in forces.

It is not a violation of the Rule to abolish a low rated position and assign the work of that position to higher rated positions and then when business conditions justify, re-establish the position with the same duties and rates of pay that had previously existed.

It is not a violation of the Agreement to create a position with duties not to be construed as clerical duties and establish a rate for that position lower than a clerical position, provided such rates are in conformance with rates of positions of similar kind in compliance with Rule 55. This, however, is not the situation in this case. In this case an entirely new position was not created by an old position re-established with the same duties and same rates of pay that had previously existed and had been agreed upon. The Carrier contends that it did not violate the Agreement when it re-established a position with the same duties and rates of pay that had formerly existed and which rates of pay for the position were agreed upon.

We request that your Board decline this claim.

(Exhibits not reproduced).

OPINION OF BOARD: This claim is advanced by the System Committee of the Brotherhood, hereinafter called Petitioner, for and on behalf of one Westergren and such other employes more particularly referred to in part (2) of said claim, hereinafter called Claimants.

The claim is based upon an alleged violation of Schedule Rule 63. In Docket 5666 Award 5775, we discussed said rule at quite some length and reference is here made to such Award for all purposes. On or about February 28, 1950, Carrier abolished, at the location herein involved, a certain job styled typist-clerk. At about the same time it asked for bids on a newly created job styled office boy or girl. The new job was bid in by one DeTemple who, in turn, was bumped by the named Claimant. The defense of Carrier is set forth in Employes' Exhibit H wherein Carrier stated "we simply reinstated a position which was formerly in existence and the work now performed on that position is the same as was formerly performed."

We think our problem is to determine if the end result of the new job is essentially or substantially the same as when the old job was in existence even though the tasks are not identical. Employes' Exhibit A is a job description of the abolished job and we find no reasonable grounds upon which to dispute the same. Employes' Exhibit C is Carrier's bulletin for the new job. Comparing the time required to perform duties in common we find the same to be six (6) hours and fifteen (15) minutes. We think the time factor plus the basic characteristics of the new job fit the case within the Schedule rule.

With reference to that portion of part (2) of the claim reading "and all other employes that may have been involved" etc., the same is denied as being inordinate in that it is not supported by evidence.

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 evidence of record warrants an affirmative Award with reference to the named Claimant in part (2) of claim herein and does not sustain an Award in favor of other Claimants mentioned therein.

AWARD