Claim must be denied.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

"An established position that has been classified, rated, bulletined and assigned in accordance with the rules of Clerks' Agreement (Secretary-Steno Roper') since January 1942 and existing through two (2) different contract agreements, was abolished and re-established the same day on August 1, 1957 with a different rate and title (Secretary to the Assistant Superintendent, Roper') and Carrier appointed an employe from another seniority district, an employe having no rights in Roper Salt Lake Freight station seniority district to this position." (Emphasis ours.)

Carriers' Superintendent, in his denial of the claim, said:

"The facts in connection with this claim are that on August 1, 1957, position of Secretary to Assistant Superintendent at Roper was established.

"Your attention is directed to Rule 1-D, which makes specific provisions for this position. Furthermore, you will note that this position is within the scope of the agreement and all rules apply except Rules 4, 10, 12, 17 and 19." (Emphasis ours.)

"On August 1, 1957 position of Secretary to Assistant Superintendent at Roper was established. Rule 1 (d) makes specific provision for this position. You will note that this position is within the scope of the agreement and all rules apply except Rules 4, 10, 12, 17 and 19.

Your statement that position of Secretary-Steno was abolished and reestablished on the same day with the same duties, but with a different title and rate is not correct. It is true that position of Secretary-

Steno was abolished. It is also true that position of Secretary to Assistant Superintendent-Roper was established, but this position does not perform the same duties as was previously performed by the Secretary-Steno.

This new position handles many additional duties, which duties are performed by Secretaries to Assistant Superintendents at locations where employed on the property and these additional duties were never performed by occupant of the abolished position."

The conclusions that: (1) "this position does not perform the same duties a8 was previously performed by the Secretary-Steno;" and, (2) "this new position handles many additional duties, which are performed by Secretaries to Assistant Superintendents," are not supported by facts.

The claim, its denial, the appeal and denial on appeal constitutes the only evidence in the record as to what occurred on the property.

In its Submission Petitioner has set forth comparative lists of what it asserts was the work of the abolished position of Secretary-Stenographer =it the work of the new position of Secretary to the Assistant Superintendent - no percentage of time devoted to each of the items of work is shown. Regarding these lists the Carrier states in its Submission:

"The listing of the duties in the Organization's Statement of Facts is the first time the Organization has ever submitted what they [sic] allege are the assigned duties of either position."

Carrier, on the other hand, in its Submissions has stated that some of the work of the abolished position was assigned to the new position with the remainder assigned to Clerks this without indication of what work. Further, in its Submissions, Carrier has listed what it says is work of the position of Secretary to Assistant Superintendent but does not categorically state that such work was, de facto performed by the occupant of the new position here involved.

Even assuming that all the facts stated in the Submissions of the parties are properly before us, they are vague. We are unable to correlate them. Consequently, we are unable, by comparison, to measure whether the work of the two positions involved is "relatively the same class of work" (Rule 61) or substantially the same.

The posture of this case is such that the ultimate issue presented-violation of the Agreement? - cannot be reached in the absence of a finding as to whether the work of the two positions is relatively or substantially the same. We, therefore, will dismiss the Claim.

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 this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

AWARD Claim dismissed.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of THIRD DIVISION

ATTEST: S. H. Schulty

Executive Secretary