PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS,

FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES






STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:


(a) Carrier violated the current Agreement between the parties when, on July 18, 1951, it abolished position of tonnage clerk, salary $317.50 per month, assigned to Miss Elizabeth Ward, and on the same date abolished position of inbound clerk, salary $291.50 per month, assigned to Mr. George T. Gann, instead of abolishing positions paying a lesser rate in accordance with Agreement provisions, at its Montgomery, Alabama Agency, and


(b) That the positions of tonnage clerk and inbound clerk be restored to their former status and all employes adversely affected by the violation be reimbursed in full for all wage loss sustained on July 18, 1951 and subsequent thereto until the condition has been corrected.


EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Prior to the abolishment of the two positions here in question, the following scheduled positions were in existence at the Carrier's Montgomery, Alabama Agency on July 1, 1951:


Incumbent Title of Position Rate of Pay
 1. J. B. Brannan Assistant Agent $374.43
 2. F. L. Gartman Warehouse Foreman 352.22
 3. K. H. Jones Transfer Clerk 311.50
 4. E. W. Ward Tonnage Clerk 317.50
 5. F. G. White Revise Clerk 338.50
 6. G. Walker Expense Clerk 291.50
 7. J. P. Brannan Assistant Revise Clerk 317.50
 8. W. L. Ruppenthal Cashier 343.50
 9. N. P. Park Claim Clerk 333.50
 10. G. T. Gann Inbound Clerk 291.50
 11. J. M. Hawkins Transfer Clerk 311.50
 12. G. T. Lutz General Clerk 275.50
 13. T. D. Hawkins Cashier's Clerk 275.50
 14. P. J. Brannon Accountant 341.50
 15. R. A. Harris Transfer Clerk 301.50
6542-15 498

The reductions made were bona fide and in good faith and in compliance with the terms of the working agreement.


There is no merit to this claim and we respectfully request that it be declined,


    All data contained herein has been made available to Petitioner.


    (Exhibits not Reproduced.)


OPINION OF BOARD: This claim is based upon Rule 14(e) which reads as follows:


    "In reducing forces the lowest rated position in the office or department where the reduction occurs will be agolished, providing the efficiency of that office or department would not be impaired by doing so."


It should be noted that the situation involved here is not the usual reduction of force because no one was laid off. What occurred was that the agent retired and was replaced by one of the clerks. Simultaneously the Carrier remodeled the office, obtained new furnishings and rearranged the work to promote great efficiency. Thereby these two positions were aboilshed and an assistant revising clerk position was establihed. It appears the evidence presented that the efficiency of the office would have been impaired by abolishing other lower rated positions.


The Organization alleges that such position of the Carrier was not preseented on the property and the Carrier avers that it was. In its original submission the Organization states that "the Carrier defends its action on the premise that to have abolished two lesser-rated positions would have imparied the efficiency of this office." Thus it seems obvious that the Carrier's position had been communicated to the employes on the property.


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 Agreement was not violated.


                  AWARD


    Claim denied.


                NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: (Sgd.) A, Ivan Tummon
 Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of March, 1954.