But this change was not intended to nor does the language used authorize and permit the transferring of work on rest days of seven-day positions from one facility to another at a point, or from one point to another, although in the same seniority district, so what was, in fact, being performed by the employes regularly assigned thereto at any facility or point as seven-day services becomes five-day services.

As stated in Award 5810 of this Division:

"The Carrier may, of course, under certain circumstances, abolish a position and transfer the remaining work to others, even to employes at another station in some cases. But the rules as interpreted by this Board do not permit a seven-day position to be reduced to six by allowing the work remaining to be performed on the seventh day to be done by an employe at another station. * * *

To authorize such transfer would destroy the purpose of the rules as they relate to and provide for the performance of seven-day work. It should be understood that if Carrier can, in fact, reduce what has been seven-day services to five and thereby meet its operational requirements it may do so but it cannot do so by transferring the work to be performed on the rest days thereof to another facility or point and there have it performed by employes on duty even though such employes are of the same class and in the same seniority district.

The question presented by the second phase of the claim is based on the fact that employes, not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement, carried and delivered train orders on Saturdays and Sundays from the Passenger Depot Office to the freight train crews to which they were addressed, it being the Organization's contention that personal delivery thereof to the addressees therein is exclusively the work of Telegraphers. This presents an issue upon which this Division has not been entirely consistant in its holdings, especially when the Agreement involved has not contained a rule specifically relating thereto. Since we had found that Carrier should not have transferred this work on Saturdays and Sundays, rest days of the Telegraphers on duty in the Yard Office, from the Yard Office to the Depot Office, and since the practice of doing so was discontinued as of December 10, 1949, we thing it would serve no useful purpose to again discuss this oft discussed issue.

Reference is made in the docket to the fact that Rule 60 of the parties' Agreement was not complied with on the property in making the claim. We find this contention to be without merit. In any event we think the following, quoted in Award 6167 from Award 4821, applicable:

"We think the correct procedure is to permit the filing of general claims where the question at issue operates uniformly upon a class of employes that is readily determinable. There is no reason why the work of this Board should not be so expedited. Technical procedures are not contemplated. The policing of an Agreement ought not to be made unnecessarily difficult by requiring the filing of a multitude of claims when the disposition of a single issue decides them all. The Organization is authorized to represent the employes and where no prejudice arises out of group handling, we think it is entirely proper."

Claim (3) is made on the basis of time and one-half. We find, if it should be determined that the claimants therein named are entitled to be compensated, that they shall be paid on a pro rata basis. See Awards 4244, 4728, 4815 and 5437 of this Division.

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 Carrier violated the Agreement.

Claims 1, 2 and 3 sustained as per Opinion and Findings.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Third Division

DISSENT TO AWARD NO. 6212-DOCKET NO. TE-6166

The facts in this docket are not in dispute, and have been correctly stated by the Referee in his Opinion. They are that this Carrier maintained two offices or facilities, manned by telegraphers, in the same seniority district. The offices were about one mile apart and the work performed in both offices was identical. On rest days of the employes at one facility the work was performed by employes covered by the same agreement and in the same seniority district, at the other office, under a staggered work week arrangement.

The Referee, after correctly stating the principle that the Carriers have the right to perform all necessary work by staggering work weeks, without the necessity of establishing relief assignments, sustained a claim that the transfer of work from one facility to another was improper. Because some of the language which was used by the Referee in reaching this conclusion leaves some doubt as to whether the Award intends to hold, on one hand that the transfer of work in question was improper under the basic agreement or, on the other hand, was prohibited by the 40-Hour Week Agreement, the Carrier Members desire to point out certain important considerations.

Questions of seniority and the general right of employes to perform work, including the bulletin, bidding, displacement and assignment rules of the Telegraphers' contrac, are matters which are provided for by the basic rule of that agreement. In this case, as in others, these rules long predated the 40-Hour Week Agreement of eptember 199 having in most cases been in the contracts since the early 1920's. These basic rules were in no way altered or modified by anything contained in the 40-Hour Week Agreement. It did not change any existing rules having to do with the right of the Carrier to transfer work from one point to another.

In all probability the Referee recognized this fact and intended by his Award to hold that the basic agreement prevented the transfer of work in question. The award which he cited for his authority (No. 5810) was rendered on that basis. The claim in that case was for a period of time prior to the date when the 40-hour week became effective and was rendered upon a finding that the basic contract on the Carrier involved therein did not permit employes at one facility to perform work at another facility 2i/z miles distant in the same seniority district. Opposed to this there are many awards

/s/ C. P. Dugan