In the instant case the clerical duties assigned to the operator cannot be said to be beyond a reasonable proximity of the operator's office, although he was required to go out into the yard to check and do work. It is noticeable that his office was located right in the yard itself and that going out to make a check could be said to be within reasonable proximity of his office. The mere fact that he was required to go outside of his office to do this is not in contravention of Award 636, as the facts in that case were quite clear and different than in the instant case."

The above dispute involved the abolishment of a yard clerk position at North Little Rock, Arkansas, and having the work, including the calling of crews, performed by an operator.

We also wish to call your Honorable Board's attention to Awards 28, 30, 33, 36, and 41 of Special Board of Adjustment No. 171 on the Illinois Central Railroad Company.

In the instant case, monopolistic rights to certain classes of work are sought and efforts are made to draw rigid class and craft lines merely for the purpose of increasing employment. The result is destructive of efficiency, economy and productivity of the railroad industry, which has now too many restrictions enforced by class and craft lines. Some of those we now have should be eliminated. Certainly, no more should be added.

It is hereby affirmed that all of the foregoing is, in substance, known to the Organization's representatives.

OPINION OF BOARD: The claim is that the Carrier violated the effective Agreement between the parties by abolishing at its Waurika, Oklahoma, station the positions of Chief Yard Clerk and Cashier-Clerk, and assigning the duties formerly performed by them to Employes not covered by the Agreement. The duties assigned, which Petitioner alleges constituted a violation of the Agreement, were calling train and engine crews, checking the yard, checking trains, weighing cars, preparing bills for various trains, and making various cashier and clerical yard reports. The assignments were to the Agent-Operator and the 2nd and 3rd trick operators. Group 1 of Rule 1Section 1, Scope Rule-lists, among others, Chief Clerks, Clerks, Station Baggagemen, Ticket Clerks (sellers), Train and Engine Crew Callers, and Waybill Sorters. As stated in its brief (p. 7):

"It is the Employes' position that clerical work, particularly that which is specifically outlined in the Scope Rule of the agreement, belongs to the clerical employes covered by the Agreement; and that Carrier does not have the right to abolish clerical positions and assign the duties thereof to others beyond the Agreement."

Carrier's contention, in essence, is that because of decreased volume of business and train service at its Waurika, Oklahoma station, the positions in question were abolished; that such decrease had been developing for a substantial period of time and that the work-load at the station had dwindled to such a point that the employment of more than three telegraphers on a round-the-clock basis was not necessary or justified; that the telegraphersone on each shift-could and did handle all the work involved.

No attempt will be made to set-forth therein all the facts which appear in the record, but a review thereof discloses that as far back as 1904, the station, which is an away-from-home terminal for freight and passenger

crews operating into and out of Waurika, was operated by an Agent, a day operator and a night operator. Three years later one clerical position and one station helper position were added to the force. In 1908, a new yard was built and a sizeable station force was established at both the passenger station and the yard. Traffic continued to increase for a while, but in 1929 it had, and thereafter, continued to decline. Decreases in personnel were made and by May 1, 1957, the remaining two clerical positions-Which are the subject of this dispute-were abolished. The duties which the encumbents thereof had theretofore performed, were assigned to, and have since been performed by the three telegraphers-one for each shift. There are no clerical Employes at the station. In other words, it is Carrier's position that the work-load had decreased to such an extent that the duties-at least to the satisfaction of Managementcould be performed, as had been done in the past, by the telegraphers; that what is, or is not, necessary to perform the required work is up to the Carrier, not the Employes involved.

The gist of Petitioner's contention is that sufficient work remains at the station-they say a full eight hours a piece by both Employes-and that the positions should not have been abolished. Carrier estimates the clerical duties of the positions abolished took approximately 3 hours and 50 minutes per day for the Cashier-Clerk, and 5 hours and 15 minutes per day for the Chief Yard Clerk.

As we see it, much clerical time is involved and whether it can be and is satisfactorily handled without the employment of other Employes, is a managerial or operational problem. It is not up to the Board to say what in our opinion constitutes or does not constitute, efficient operation. Our opinion might coincide, or not coincide, with what constitutes sufficient performance. We are not charged with that responsibility. We are, however, concerned with whether or not there has been a violation of the Agreement. If there has or has not been, regardless of our feelings as to what we think is good technique, we will so state. Here, Petitioner's claim is bottomed on the contention that the work-particularly that of a position specified in the Agreement--belongs exclusively to Employes covered thereby, and that the assignment and performance of the duties thereof by Employes covered by a different Agreement, even though the jobs were abolished, constitutes a violation.

It should be kept in mind that the jobs were abolished. If the encumbents thereof remained on the job and exclusive duties of the positions were simply transferred to others, an entirely different problem would exist. That is not the case here, however. As stated in Award 615:

"It has always been the rule that telegraphers may be assigned clerical work without limit except their capacity to fill out their time when not occupied with telegraphy. For obvious reasons in diminution of force, a clerk cannot undertake or be accorded telegrapher's duties but the converse is not true; on the contrary, where two positions are involved, one, that of a clerk, and the other, that of a telegrapher, and one is to be abolished, the telegrapher-if any telegraph duties remain -has the absolute right to the position including the assumption of the remaining clerical duties."

It would serve no good purpose, and would unduly lengthen our decision herein, to quote from or refer to all pertinent awards which we have heretofore issued. Both parties have been very helpful in calling them to our attention. They have all been considered, but in the final analysis, each, as well as this case, must stand on its own feet. We have so treated this dispute, but in

"When the work of clerks exceeds that which the telegrapher can perform and it becomes necessary to increase forces, the excess clerical work belongs to clerks and must be assigned to them. If the work recedes to the point where the telegrapher can perform it all, it is the clerks and not the telegraphers which must be cut off when telegraphic work remains to be performed."

That the Agreement has not been violated.

AWARD