constitute same as being a matter of record of such importance in the operation of the railroad as to come within the purview of such yardstick of work belonging exclusively to telegraphers.

The claim is without merit or contractual foundation; in fact, the incidents out of which this claim arose is an agreed to and permissible thing under the memorandum agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A, and we urge that your Honorable Board so hold and deny this claim.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: The claims are predicated on telephone messages by Star Agents. It is Petitioner's contention that Carrier did not remove telephones from specified stations, as provided in the Memorandum of Agreement dated May 20, 1937, and that because Carrier violated that Agreement, "the damages to the telegrapher class amount to 8 hours' pay at straight time telegrapher rate for each date that the wires remain at this station." The rate of pay for an Agent-Telegrapher is higher than the rate of pay for a Star Agent.

Petitioner's General Chairman presented the claims to Carrier's General Superintendent in letters dated June 15, 1957; July 20, 1957; July 27, 1957, and August 12, 1957. In each letter the General Chairman complained that a Star Agent handled a communication of record. For example, in a letter dated June 15, 1957, the General Chairman wrote, in part:

"Please be advised that on Thursday, April 18, 1957, the STAR (non-operator) freight agent at Glendon, N. C., handled (requested and received) over the dispatcher's telephone the following communications, in violation of Article 1 and other rules of the Telegraphers' Agreement:"

Article 1 is the Scope Rule. The other Rules which Petitioner cites in the record are Article 2-Basic Day-Intermittent Service, and Article 13Classification of Employes -Additional Positions. It is clear from the record that the claims are primarily based upon an alleged violation of the Scope Rule, even though Petitioner seeks to restore the agent-operator's rate of pay at Glendon. The claims, as presented, are not predicated upon an alleged violation of the Memorandum of Agreement dated May 20, 1937. The request for a restoration of the agent's operator's rate of pay is not, alone, a criteria for the claim. All of the correspondence on the property refers to the telephone messages set out in the General Chairman's letters.

This issue has previously been before this Division of the Board. Similar claims involving the same parties and the same Agreements were considered by this Division in Awards 9572, 9573, 10825, 10836, 11509, 11512, 11610, and 11611. All of the claims were denied. We can find nothing palpably wrong with those Awards which would justify us to overrule them.

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 Carrier did not violate the Agreement.

AWARD