Board for want of jurisdiction. The remainder, relating to the monetary demand, should be denied.

All evidence here submitted in support of Carrier's position is known to Employe representatives.

Carrier, not having seen the ORT's submission, reserves the right after doing so to make appropriate response thereto.

OPINION OF BOARD: It is the contention of the Claimant Storey that a part of his assigned duties is the handling of train orders and messages when ever the occasion requires such service; that, consequently, the position which he holds should be classified according to the duties performed within the meaning of Rule 1(b) of the Agreement which provides, that "employes will be classified according to duties performed." he contends, further, that when the communication work of handling train orders and messages became a part of the duties of a Station Agent he immediately became an Agent Telegrapher and under Rule 9 of the Agreement he was entitled to overtime for work in excess of eight (8) hours per day.

The Carrier asserts that there has been no position of Agent-Telegrapher at the station at Oneida, Tennessee for twenty years and, further, that there has been no change in the duties required of a Station Agent at that point since Claimant Storey went on the job as a Station Agent in May, 1947; Carrier further maintains this is a monthly rated position with assigned hours 7:00 A. M. to 4:00 P. M. and Rule 9 as to overtime for hourly rated positions does not apply; it is Carrier's contention that the Station Agent was to perform all duties assigned him, that there was very little occasion for the Agent to handle train orders, as they were issued only in connection with unusual situations or in cases of emergency.

At the time of the Effective Agreement, September 1, 1949, the employe at Oneida, Tennessee, was in accordance with Rule 1(b) rated as a Station Agent and was to be paid as a Station Agent as evidenced by the Agreement Rules.

The listing of the position in the Agreement discloses the following: "Oneida . . . Sta Agt . . . $370.73 (month)"

"The listing of positions, with locations and rates of pay, is for the purpose of showing the established rates of pay of existing positions, effective as of September 1, 1949 * * * * * *

It is conceded by the Petitioner that this is a monthly rated position, it is also conceded that the duties at the time of the alleged violation were the same as they were when the Agreement was entered into. It is further conceded that this Board has no authority to re-classify positions-that it is a matter of negotiation between the Carrier and the Petitioner. This is an attempt to persuade us to do something indirectly that we are powerless to do directly. The claims should be disallowed.

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 the Agreement has not been violated.

AWARD