War 11) when the ticket work grew to such volume that a ticket clerk to sell tickets during the daytime was put on. hater, when the ticket selling had gone back to its normal (or lesser) channels, the ticket clerk was dispensed with, and the work was again assigned to operators for performance in connection with their other telegraph office duties, such as blocking trains, handling train orders, telegraphing, etc.

In Docket CL-7851 involving Delaware, Ohio, on another division, the work went down to the extent that the agent-operator on the first trick could handle it all, and the agent-operator was there retained, abolishing the last daytime clerical position. Tickets have to be sold for two night passenger trains, and a clerk is employed to do the night ticket work. Thus, in that case the agentoperator does the ticket work during daylight hours and the clerk does such work at night; but it is obvious that in such case other work is attached, so that the principal work is as agent-operator, whereas in the instant (Lexington) case, plain ticket selling alone is involved, and there is no justification for a ticket agent in addition to the freight agent.

CONCLUSIONS

The Carrier has shown by its evidence that:

1. The ticket office work at Lexington Union Station has gone down to the point at which only one employe is necessary at any time.

2. Responsibility for such ticket office work has been vested in the freight agent, who has only 5 other employes under his supervision and direction.

3. Actual selling of tickets is assigned to ticket sellers under the Clerks' Agreement.

4. There is nothing in either the Telegraphers' Agreement or the Clerks' Agreement which makes ticket selling work exclusive to either craft. Such work is assignable to either craft according to work conditions.

5. The work conditions at Lexington Union Station are such that the ticket selling is properly assigned to ticket sellers under the Clerks' Agreement.

6. Such assignment of the ticket selling work at Lexington is fully consistent with assignment at other points and is consistent with the Carrier's position in other cases (Clerks and Telegraphers) involving such work.

7. The Telegraphers' Agreement has not been breached, and the claim should be denied in its entirety.

All data contained in this submission have been discussed in conference or by correspondence with the employe representatives.

OPINION OF BOARD: The issue before us is whether, on September 1, 1954, the Carrier violated the existing agreement with the Telegraphers when it abolished the position of Ticket Agent at Lexington, Kentucky, the Freight

Agent took over supervision, and the ticket clerk the routine duties. Neither is covered by the agreement.

Some question was raised about proceeding in the absence of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks; the record shows that notice was given in August, 1960 to that Organization which has failed to appear though it did inform the Secretary of this Board that it was not involved in this dispute. Since due notice has been given, and even acknowledged, the matter is now properly at issue and our determination will be binding on the parties.

Since the Scope Rule of the Agreement is general in character and does not undertake to enumerate the functions of the Ticket Agent embraced therein, the Claimants' right to the work, which they assert belongs to them, must be proved and that burden rests on the Employes. Award 6824-Shake; Award 9328-Johnson and Award 8838-McMahon.

Consequently there was offered in the record a list of the duties of the Ticket Agent comprising twenty-five items ranging from "Open office door at 6:45 A. M." to "Balance and make monthly reports". The Carrier in turn states that the Ticket Clerks performed much of the work involved in these items. At argument it appeared that the list should be characterized as "Office duties" because nearly all of the items, except perhaps the signing of the reports and one or two others, might be and constantly were being done interchangeably by the ticket agent and the ticket clerks.

The parties have neglected to furnish exact information as to the division of duties after the office of Ticket Agent was abolished. At that time there were two full ticket clerk or ticket seller positions. This has now been reduced to one full-time ticket seller and one hour of work per day by a clerk in the Freight Office when the morning train arrives. The Carrier strongly asserts that the ticket seller does the routine work and the Freight Agent does only supervisory duty.

In Award 5149-Boyd, it was pointed out that this Division of the Board (Award 4992-Carter) had adopted the principle that it is for the Carrier to determine the amount and character of supervision required, as a managerial prerogative, and also that such duties may be transferred to other supervisory officers who are entitled to perform them.

What was said by this Board in another case (Award 8662-Guthrie) is singularly appropriate:

"In fact, about the only remaining duty * immediately prior to the abolishing of the position, which might be argued to be an exclusive telegrapher responsibility, was that of a very minimal amount of supervision. This had come to be so insignificant that it cannot be said to bar the action taken by the Carrier."

In view of the showing that passenger revenues at this station were reduced from $410,471.78 in 1945, to $46,132.53 for the first three months of 1956, action was no doubt called for, hence the abolition of the office of Ticket Agent with the resulting supervision by the Freight Agent of the clerical work being performed by the same people in much the same manner as it had been before the office of Ticket Agent was abolished. Under these circumstances no violation by the Carrier has been proved and the claim should be denied.

That the Agreement was not violated.

AWARD