This same organization took a similar position in the dockets which gave rise to Awards 911 and 955 of this Division. In Award 911 the facts differed to the extent that the remaining work was required to be nerformed at a point eight-tenths of a mile from where the position abolished was located, while in the instant case that situation does not exist as both the Freight Agent and the Passenger Agent are located at the same station. This Division ruled against the organization's position in Award 911 and held:

"The record shows that the work in question, which is covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement, is being performed by employes included within the agreement and it is admitted that if these employed were located at the tower or the tower located at the depot, these employes could be required to perform this work. Petitioner contends, however, that Tiger and Worland are separate stations and for this reason, the work of the positions cannot be consolidated."

"Carrier had the right under the agreement to consolidate this work with other work covered by the agreement and assign the work to employes qualified under the agreement to perform same and such other work. The claim will be denied."

Carrier respectfully requests that this claim be denied in its entirely as being without merit.

The Carrier affirmatively states all data contained herein has been presented to the employes' representatives.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: Prior to October 1, 1951, Carrier maintained at Spring Lake, N.J., a Ticket Agent-Operator and an Assistant Ticket AgentOperator at its passenger station, with hours of 5:25 A. 1J. to 1:30 P. M., and 1:15 P. M. to 9:15 P. M., respectively, seven days per week. At its freight station, located some 400 feet from its passenger station, there was also a Freight Agent, with hours from 8:00 A. M. to 4:00 P. M., Monday through Friday.

On July 9, 1951, the Carrier's Superintendent advised the General Chairman by letter that on account of a decrease in passenger and freight business he proposed that the Freight Agent's position be abolished and the Freight and Passenger accounts consolidated, effective October 1, the Freight Agent's position to be reestablished on a seasonal basis from June to September, inclusive. The Superintendent's letter asked for the General Chairman's concurrence in this proposed action.

The General Chairman replied on August 7 that his decision would be unavailable until he made, in the near future, a thorough check,

Nothing further occurred until September 20 when the Carrier put into effect, as of October 1, the arrangement proposed in its Superintendent's letter of July 9. The General Chairman protested this action on September 27, calling attention to the rates applicable to all the positions involved and inviting further negotiations. The Superintendent replied on October 2, indicating a willingness to negotiate with respect to the rates to be established for the consolidated position. Apparently no such negotiations took place and this claim resulted.

We deduce from the record that some part of the Freight Agent's work, the amount of which we cannot accurately determine, remained after the Carrier's action of October 1, 1951. The Organization's General Chairman concedes the Carrier's right to consolidate or abolish positions under proper circumstances; and the Carrier apparently recognizes that there may be an obligation on it to make equitable wage adjustments when such things occur.

It does not appear to us, however, that the parties have exhausted the efforts which they are required to make to reconcile their differences on the property. Both parties apparently understand their contractual obligations and we think they must share the responsibility for their failure to make a good faith effort to settle dispute.

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 does not presently have jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein, for the reason that the parties have not made a good faith effort to settle the same on the property, as required by the Railway Labor Act, as amended.

AWARD