be given precedence or priority over some other work. The difference between the situation in the Illinois Central Award and existing practices and interpretations on Southern Pacific is clearly illustrated by the force at Bisbee, the station involved in Award 615, where at the time of the rendition of that Award, as well as for a number of years prior and subsequent thereto, both an Agent and first telegrapher-clerk worked the day shift. This is also true at many other locations on Carrier's lines.

In fact, at the time of the latest reprint of the Telegraphers' Agreement, there were no less than 79 positions of "Agent" at stations where telegraph duties were performed by "telegrapher-clerks", and while a number of force adjustments have been made in respect to reclassifying agents to agent telegraphers, determination by appropriate supervisors as to whether this, would be done or whether clerical positions would be eliminated is and always has been a function not limited by the Clerks' Agreement since both Agents and telegrapher-clerks have historically performed clerical work as a part of their assignment.

The handling given by Carrier in this case could in nowise be considered frivolous. Action was required and Carrier asserts that it was not limited by any provision of the current agreement when in the interest of economy and efficiency in its operation it abolished Cashier's Position No. 13 at. Lordsburg and rearranged the work at that station in the manner described.

CONCLUSION

The claim in this docket is entirely lacking in either merit or agreement support and Carrier requests that, if not dismissed, it be denied.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: Petitioner claims that Carrier violated the Agreement when it abolished a Cashier position coming under said Agreement, is the freight station force at Lordsburg, New Mexico, and assigned the duties thereof to Agent and First Telegrapher, employes not covered by the Agree ment.

Carrier does not deny that it effectuated this reduction in staff and reassigned the duties to the two incumbents as described by Petitioner, but contends that no violation was entailed.

The governing Agreement contains a so-called general type Scope Rule, listing the positions which are the subject of the Agreement, but does not explicitly guarantee the retention of said work. The awards of this Board have consistently held that under such Scope Rule, for the Claimant to prevail, it is necessary to establish that the work alleged to have been improperly transferred must have been exclusively held by Claimants through a history of customary practice.

The parties do not disagree that practice as well as the Telegraphers' Agreement and our awards sanction the Carrier's right to assign clericaltype duties to employes designated as telegraphers or agents to "fill out" their telegraphic assignments. Carrier points out that as of the most recent reprint of the Telegraphers' Agreement (prior to November, 1960) there were 79 positions of "Agent" at its stations where clerical duties were performed by "telegrapher-clerks" and adds,-"both Agents and telegrapher-clerks have historically performed clerical work as a part of their assignment."

On the other hand, Petitioner states, duties now transferred to the Agent and 1st Telegrapher "had been historically and traditionally assigned to and performed by the Cashier for at least thirty-four (34) years." Carrier states that its records show that Cashier's position was established at this location in July, 1922, abolished December, 1932, and re-established in May, 1942 and that the work thereof was performed in the ten-year interim by Agent and General Clerk.

We have often said, and we reiterate here, that we may not and will not interfere with management's rightful discretion to decide on the most efficient and economical way of utilizing its staff, including the reduction thereof, if in doing so it does not deny Agreement rights to which it has committed itself.

Under the facts of the instant claim, our determination centrally depends on whether in exercising its inherent right to consolidate functions into the hands of fewer employes, management was obligated by the Agreement to choose the Cashier, instead of either the Agent or the 1st Telegrapher as one of the survivors of the group of three here involved, if it was determined to reduce the total number of these employes.

Put in terms of our criterion of usual and customary exclusivity of practices and limiting ourselves,-as we must-to the Agreement which is before us (that of the Clerks') and the position which is the subject of the claim (the Cashier's), a conclusively impressive case persists for protection .of the Cashier's position for the performance of work which he had done for at least seventeen years as a full eight-hours' job and which was more characteristically a Clerk's job than a Telegrapher's or Agent's, and none of whose functions had significantly diminished or changed at the moment when they were parceled out to two other positions not under this Agreement coverage.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole aecord 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 this dispute involved herein; and

That the Agreement was violated.

AWARD