say that the Conductor was performing work which was exclusively that of a telegrapher when he merely picked up the train order from the waybill box. In order to sustain their position, the burden of proof is upon Employes to show that someone other than a telegrapher performed work which was exclusively that of a telegrapher. This they cannot do and therefore no basis for claim exists because "no employes other than those covered by this agreement" handled the train order.

We have not quoted any operating rules regarding the handling of train orders because it would serve no useful purpose to do so. It is well settled that inasmuch as operating rules are promulgated by the Carrier, unilaterally, they can be altered unilaterally by the Carrier when it is reasonable and proper to do so, as was done in this case when the Dispatcher instructed the operator to leave the train order in the waybill box. The rights of the Employes are to be found in the Agreement alone, and the Train Order Rule in the Agreement is clear and unambiguous.

It is a fundamental principle that whether to have work done or not is a managerial prerogative and Carrier is under no obligation to have work performed which it does not consider necessary. In this case, the Carrier decided that placing the train order in the waybill box would satisfy the requirements of service and that it was not necessary for the operator to personally hand the order to the Conductor. This was a decision for the carrier to make, clearly within the Carrier's area of discretion, and was perfectly proper. The Carrier has the undisputed right to decide whether or not it wants certain work performed and Carrier's right to have certain work eliminated cannot be challenged so long as during the process of having certain work eliminated, work exclusively reserved for one craft is not performed by someone outside that craft. There would be considerable merit to Employe's contention if someone other than a telegrapher bad performed even the slightest service in connection with the handling of the train order, but the fact remains, that no human hand intervened between handling of the train order by the telegrapher and constructive delivery to the Conductor to whom addressed.

Our situation is so identical to that involved in a recent Award of the Third Division, namely Award No. 8327, that the Carrier bases its argument squarely upon the reasoning behind this Award. The only material difference in facts is that in Award 8327 the train order was left pinned to the train register book whereas in our situation the train orders were left in the waybill box. The facts and circumstances in this claim, with the above exception, are completely identical to those in Award No. 8327 and this claim should similarly be denied in order to preserve a practice and interpretation of long standing.

OPINION OF BOARD: The question is whether Rule 12 of the Agreement between these parties has been violated when Carrier requires a telegrapher to place a train order, which that telegrapher has copied in a waybill box for the designated conductor to pick up while the telegrapher is not on duty.

In furtherance of maintaining consistency in the awards of this Division, and so as to avoid conflict and confusion in them, we deem a sustaining award proper. Award 11653 (Hall). Carrier has paid the claim for June 19, 28, and August 2, 7, 9, 14, 21 and 28, 1957, and should be credited accordingly.

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 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

That the Agreement was violated.

AWARD