formity with Rule 2(b) "by agreement between the parties of this agreement." Keeping in mind that Rule 2(b) require that the "rate of pay will be fixed in conformity with positions of the same class," it is apparent where there is only one rate of pay for an agency of a certain classification, as in the case of small non-telegraph agencies, that the area of "agreement between the parties" is limited to agreement as to the classification into which the agency falls. Here there is no question that all of the communication lines except the commercial telephone were removed and that the duties and responsibilities of the Agent at Arma were such that the position falls into the classification of a small non-telegraph agency. The General Chairman has never contended that the Carrier improperly reclassified the position as a small non-telegraph agency. There is no other classification into which the agency at Arms could fall. The only question raised by the General Chairman was his effort to prevent the Carrier from fixing the rate of pay in conformity with other positions of the same class. In view of the mandate in Rule 2(b), it is apparent that the parties have no alternative but to fix the rate of pay in conformity with the rate of pay for other small non-telegraph agencies. Here again the General Chairman has not disputed that the rate of pay of $364.35, effective December 1, 1961, was the rate of pay for other small non-telegraph agencies.

Based on the foregoing record, it is apparent that the duties and responsibilities of the Agent at Arms had decreased substantially and that such change had been of a permanent nature continuously accruing for a number of years. The Agreement recognizes the right of the Carrier to reclassify positions under such circumstances. The Employes do not dispute the Carrier's action in reclassifying the position at Arms as that of small non-telegraph agent. The rate of pay was "fixed in conformity with positions of the same class" as required by Rule 2. It follows that the Carrier complied with the requirements of the Agreement in fixing the rate of pay of the position at Arma and that the Agreement was not violated as alleged by the Employes. The claim must be denied.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: Carrier's agent at Arms, Kansas had been classified as "agent-restricted operator" and paid an hourly rate of $2.265 until December 1. 1961, on which date Carrier reclassified the position to a small non-telegraph-monthly rated agency at a rate of $364.35 per month. The record discloses that Carrier had previously removed all communication lines from the station except those used for commercial telephone calls.

It is not disputed that the latter mentioned rate was new to the seniority district, though it did apply at some points on Carrier's property, nor that the monthly rate was set as a result of a unilateral act by Carrier not concurred in by this Petitioner.

The Petitioner alleges an agreement violation as a result of the reclassification without its concurrence and requests in its claim that the previously negotiated rate of pay be restored to the position so that all incumbents thereof might receive what Petitioner alleges to be the proper rate, i.e., $2.265 per hour from December 1, 1961.

Were it not for the fact that the record shows the Arms, station to have been closed and abandoned effective March 18, 1963, pursuant to authority of the Kansas Corporation Commission, it would be necessary that we make a finding that Carrier's act of reclassifying the position was either proper or

improper for unless it was the latter we would be concerned with the question of whether Carrier could reduce the rate of the position and if so, what the rate should be. However, because of having previously found above that the monthly rate set by Carrier was new to the seniority district embracing Arms, and having previously said in Award No. 13895 that in a factual situation such as is now before us, there is mandatory requirement imposed by Rule 2(b) of the Agreement for the parties to negotiate a rate of pay for a reclassified position, we are not called upon to decide that issue but instead we are constrained to find that Carrier violated the terms of the Agreement between the parties when it put into effect a rate of pay for a position that had neither been paid within the seniority district nor agreed upon by the Petitioner.

We are of the opinion that the prior incumbents of the position in dispute at Arms, should be correctly compensated for all time which each worked subsequent to December 1, 1961 and that such compensation should be at the rate received before the position reclassification and rate reduction occurred.

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

Claim sustained in accordance with above Opinion and Fndings.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of THIRD DIVISION

ATTEST: S. H. Schulty

Executive Secretary