OPINION OF BOARD: Prior to April 1, 1956, an Agent-Operator and one Station Clerk, both headquartered at Daingerfield, Texas, handled the work of the headquarters' station as well as the work of the station at Veals, nearly four miles away. Veals is an interchange point with the Texas Northern Railway.

On April 1, 1956, the Carrier established two telegrapher positions at Veals and on April 4, 1956, the Carrier abolished the Station Clerk's position at Daingerfield. The work of the Agent-Operator at Daingerfield had been greatly reduced and he was able to handle the station alone. The Station Clerk's work at Veals was absorbed by the two telegraphers.

The Organization contends that the Carrier's unilateral action violated the Scope Rule and also Rules 3, 7, 17 and 67 of the controlling Agreement.

The Organization claims that the clerical work involved represented a full day's work and that it had not diminished at the time the position was abolished. The Organization further claims that the 3 hours daily yard work the Station Clerk had previously performed at Veals-which is exclusively Clerks work-is now performed by the two telegraphers. The Organization maintains that this yard work is not in close proximity to where the telegraph keys were installed and that the telegraphers must leave their stations to perform this yard work.

The record on the property indicates that a Clerk's position had previously been both established and abolished at Veals in keeping with clerical job demands. The record also indicates that operational requirements controlled the installation of the two telegrapher positions at Veals. Incidentally, the Organization did not challenge the Carrier on this point.

The principle that a telegrapher may perform clerical duties that are "incident to or in close proximity to" his telegraph work, can only be applicable when two or more crafts or classes of employes are involved. In the instant case, there is only one craft involved. Consequently, that principle is inapplicable.

In Award 5786, involving the same instant parties, this Board held:

"The record establishes the necessity for the telegraphic positions. Under such circumstances a telegrapher may properly perform clerical work in proximity thereto to the extent required to fill out the position he occupies. If the work recedes to the point when the telegraphers can perform it all it is the clerks and not the telegraphers which must be cut off when telegraphic work remains to be performed."

From the above, it inferentially follows that when a telegrapher is alone at a station, he must perform all the requisite job duties both proximate and otherwise.

The Scope Rule of the controlling Agreement did not reserve the clerical work set forth in the Opinion solely to the Claimant. Consequently, we must rule that the Carrier did not violate the Agreement and deny the claim.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the parties waived oral hearing;

That the Carrier did not violate the Agreement.

AWARD