principle that it is not the function of this Board to modify an existing rule or supply a new rule when none exists.

CONCLUSION

Carrier asserts it has conclusively established that the claim in this docket is entirely lacking in either merit or agreement support and, therefore, requests that said claim, if not dismissed, be denied.

All data hereinsubmitted have been presented to the duly authorized representative of the employes and are made a part of the particular question in dispute.

The carrier reserves the right, if and when it is furnished with the submissions which may have been or will be filed ex parte by the petitioner in this case, to make such further answer as may be necessary in relation to all allegations and claims as may be advanced by the petitioner in such submission, which cannot be forecast by the carrier at this time and have not been answered in this, the carrier's initial submission.

(Exhibits not reproduced).

OPINION OF BOARD: The Employes state that prior to the summer of 19'51, employes covered by their agreement exclusively performed all of the communications work in connection with the perforating or punching coded tape used for the transmission of telegraphic communications of record on this property. During the summer of 1951, the Carrier installed new communications equipment known as 063 Card-to-Tape-I.B.M. Machines for the purpose of making tape. The Carrier did not assign the work of operating this I.B.M. 063 Card-to-Tape machine to telegraph service employes, but placed employes not covered by the Telegraphers' agreement on these machines for the purpose of making tape. Prior to the summer of 1951, Telegraphers had manually operated teletype perforators that made tape. After the installation of the 063 Card-toTape I.B.M. machine, whose sole purpose was to make tape, this machine was operated by a clerk.

The Employes state that the Carrier has violated Rule 41(a) of the Telegraphers' Agreement and the Interpretative Agreement of November li. 1954 in connection with the application of Rule 41(a) of the Agreement.

The Carrier states that after extensive study, it undertook to modernize its car records and office procedures by installing in various of its yard offices I.B.M. machines of various types, such as, key punch machines, sorters. collators, reproducers, accounting machines, card-to-tape machines and tapeto-card machines. Prior to the installation of this equipment in the various yard offices, card records, train consists, bad order car reports and manifests were prepared by clerical Employes in manuscript form either in longhand or on a typewriter. Copies of these reports were either sent to the interested offices by mail or delivered to the local telegraph office for transmission by telegraphers to those addressed. The key to the I.B.M. system is the punch card in which holes are punched, either manually or automatically, with information to be used by the associated equipment in the compilation of the various records and reports. When cars in the terminal are classified and a train made up for departure, the cards are assembled in the order the cars will stand in the train. Where clerical Employes formerly prepared the consists in longhand or on a typewriter and delivered same to the local telegraph office for transmission, they now insert the cards in a card-to-tape machine which

automatically produces a perforated tape. The tape is then delivered to the local telegraph office where telegraphers transmit the consists by feeding the tape into a teletype transmitter which automatically prints a page consist and at the same time, the same list and a tape, is produced on a teletype receiver in the telegraph office at a distant terminal.

This dispute concerns the 063 Card-to-Tape I.B.M. Machine in the Yard Offices at the locations listed by the Employes.

The Carrier states that the claim of the Employes referred to the Board clearly indicates that it is both indefinite and vague, so much so that it is defective on at least two counts. It is for unnamed Claimants whose status is unknown to the Board. Also, the Employes seek, in the claim, to have a joint check made of Carrier's records in order to determine whom the Claimants might be. No request for a joint check was ever handled on the property. As to the Carrier's contention that the claim is indefinite and vague for the reason that it is for unnamed Claimants whose status is unknown to the Board, from a reading of the submissions, we find that the Employes have informed the Carrier on the property of the named Claimants at the following 11 locations: Gerber, West Oakland Yard, Klamath Falls Yard, Ogden Yard, Sparks Yard, Yuma Yard, Los Angeles Yard, Fresno Yard, Bakersfield Yard, San Jose Yard and Watsonville Jet. Yard. As to the contention of the Carrier that a joint check was not asked by the Employes on the property, this contention is well taken, as this Board has held that it cannot require the Carrier to search its records in order to make a claim or claims for Employes (Award 9343). However, at the yards above mentioned it is not necessary for the Carrier to search its records to ascertain who the Claimants are, as the Employes have named the Claimants at the above yards.

The contention of the Carrier that a third party notice must be given under Section 3, first (j) of the Railway Labor Act to the Clerk's Organization has been conformed with and a third party notice was given to the Clerk's Organization. The Clerk's Organization was afforded an opportunity to be heard which they waived.

The question involved in this claim is whether telegraphers have a right under the terms of their Agreement with the Carrier to operate the so-called 063 Card-to-Tape I.B.M. machines, which have been installed at certain named locations by the Carrier during the summer of 1951.

The 063 Card-to-Tape I.B.M. machine performs the sole function of perforating tape, which tape is then used to actuate a teletype transmitter, sending the required information to other places on the Carrier's system. A clerk places an I.B.M. punch card in the 063 Card-to-Tape I.B.M. machine, then places an ordinary teletype tape in its proper place, threading it through a slot where the punches can strike it, and then turns on an electric motor which operates this mechanism. The operation of this machine transfers the information from the I.B.M. cards to the teletype tape, which tape is then taken off the machine and delivered to a telegrapher. A telegrapher inserts the tape in the teletype transmitter which operates in the usual manner to send the electrical impulses over the telegraph wires to the proper destination. Prior to the operation of this I.B.M. 063 Card-to-Tape machine, Telegraphers had performed the identical work, by means of manually operated teletype perforators. The sole function of the I.B.M. 063 Card-to-Tape machine is to make tape. This machine is distinguished from the machine which resulted in denial Award 9913, as the teletype tape that was produced in the machine in (Award 9913) was a by-product of the clerical work of preparing the various car

reports and other documents. This 063 Card-to-Tape I.B.M. machine does nothing but produce tape.

Section 4 of the Interpretative Agreement dated November 17, 1944 reads as follows:

"The business or work now handled by employes covered by this agreement and any business or work reestablished which was formerly performed by such employes, shall not be diverted to the machines operated by other classes of employes." (Emphasis ours.)

The Carrier contends that the Interpretative Agreement refers to the application of Rule 41(a) and that this rule refers only to teletype and automatic printer machines and other automatic mechanical devices used to transmit or receive communication of record and that the I.B.M. 063 Machine does not transmit or received communications of record. This is so. Rule 41(a) has been held by this Board to be clear and unambiguous in its language (Award 9116). It thus plainly requires the operation of any "automatic, mechanical device used to transmit or receive communications of record" by one or another of the classes specified in the Telegraphers' Scope Rule. Consequently, the Carrier is prohibited from assigning operation of such machines, even if they be considered "automatic" to Employes of any other craft. In Section 4 of the Interpretative Agreement entered into on November 17, 1944, the telegraphers are given more that the operation of automatic, mechanical devices used to transmit or receive communications of record. They are also given the business or work which was handled by the telegraphers as of November 17, 1944 or any business or work re-established which was formerly performed by such employes. Therefore, if the telegraphers had operated a perforator to make tape, the making of such a tape cannot now be diverted to the 063 Card-to-Tape I.B.M. machine operated by a clerk.

The Board finds that the Carrier has violated Section 4 of the Interpretative Agreement dated November 17, 1944 at the following locations where Claimants were named on the property:

Date 063 Card-to-Tape Date of Claim Machine Discontinued