Indeed, Petitioner's own description of the job content of the former position of Agent definitely disproves the claim that this position was reclassified. An analysis of Petitioner's statement as to the job content of the two telegraphic positions remaining in the Linnton office, when compared with the duties he shows for the former position of Agent, will show beyond doubt that there is no relation between the position abolished and either of the two positions remaining. What actually occurred on August 16, 1958 was that Respondent abolished two positions coming within the scope of the telegraphers' agreement (the Agent and one Telegrapher) and simultaneously created a new position of Assistant Agent Telegrapher in conformity with Rule 2 (b).

But, even viewing Petitioner's reference to Rule 2 (c) in the most favorable light, the most that can be said is that Respondent reclassified one of the telegrapher positions to Assistant Agent-Telegrapher with no change in rate of pay. Even if your Honorable Board were to find that Respondent's action had this effect, still that finding would obviously lend no support to the instant claim, which is that the station accounting work for the Linnton district be returned to the Linnton office and the position of Agent be restored in that office.

Respondent has shown:

(1) Its action in transferring the station accounting work from the Linnton office to the Hoyt Street office was in all respects in conformity with uncontested past practice;

(2) The rules of the telegraphers' agreement on this property, and specifically Rule 2 (c) thereof cited by the Petitioner, contain no prohibition against the action taken by Respondent; and

(3) Awards of the Third Division have consistently upheld Management's right in the interest of efficient and economical operation to take such action, absent a specific prohibition in the telegraphers' working agreement (Award 5803 and awards cited therein).

Respondent, therefore, submits that the instant claim is wholly without support and must be denied.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: Prior to August 16, 1958 Carrier maintained an agent, two telegraphers, and two clerks at Linnton, Oregon. Conferences were held on June 25 and August 1, 1958 relative to proposed changes at the Linnton station. Although the employes expressed opposition to the proposed transfer of work from Linnton under the jurisdiction of the agent, Carrier made the transfer of work to the Portland office and to the Willbridge Yard office which are under the supervision of employes outside of the Agreement. Effective August 16, 1958 the Linnton station carried on with a reduced force consisting of an assistant agent telegrapher and a first telegrapher. The positions of the two clerks and that of the second telegrapher were eliminated.

Organization makes claim that Carrier violated the Agreement by reclassifying the position of agent telegrapher to that of assistant agent telegrapher with a decreased rate of pay and by transferring the work to other employes not covered by the Agreement. It maintains that this change was made by unilateral action contrary to Rule 2 (c).

Carrier takes the position that it did not make a reclassification but created a new position, that of assistant agent telegrapher, in accordance with Rule 2 (b). It supports its action wlth the argument that the assistant agent telegrapher performs duties different from those of the eliminated agent position. It also maintains that the work transferred out does not belong exclusively to the agent; and consequently, it had the right to assign these duties to supervise outside the Agreement.

The central issue in this dispute is whether or not the position of assistant agent telegrapher is a reclassification or a newly created position.

After the changes of August 16, 1968 Linnton station continued to service as an agency station. Despite the change in title, the assistant agent telegrapher exercised supervision of the work at the station. He was Carrier's representative in dealing with patrons just as the agent formerly performed in that capacity. Carrier's contention that the eliminated position of agent is distinct from that of agent telegrapher and that the agent at Linnton did not perform telegrapher's work is not consistent with the position it took in Award No. 11099. In that award one of the Claimants, Mr. K. M. Eller, who is also involved in the instant dispute was recognized by Carrier as an agent telegrapher at the same Linnton station. The maintenance of Linnton as an open station continued to require the supervisory duties of an agent telegrapher in spite of the discontinuance of that position and the transfer of some duties to employes not under the Agreement. The change in title to assistant agent telegrapher with reduced pay did not alter the fact that this employe's duties in terms of the station's task remained basically the same as those he had performed before August 16, 1958. Accordingly, Rule 2 (b) upon which Carrier relies is not applicable since this rule is effective when a new position is established.

Rule 2 (c), however, is in point because it treats with reclassification of positions. As in Awards No. 5171 and No. 8486 which involved a similarly worded rule of other agreements, we find that a change in position cannot be made without consent of both parties resulting from a conference.

The Agreement was violated.

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

The Agreement of the parties was violated.

AWARD