All that was done in the instant claim was an undertaking on part of Carrier's Purchasing Agent to correctly reclassify two jobs where conditions had changed. Manifestly, it would have been unfair to the comptometer operator to transfer work from a higher paid job without proper compensation.

There was nothing wrong in Carrier's action in setting rate of $400.00 on stenographer-clerk's job. That salary was adequate for the job content and in line with similar jobs in General Office building. Carrier made no money by this transaction.

In Carrier's opinion, there is no merit to this claim, and we respectfully request it be denied.

OPINION OF BOARD: After the retirement of the occupant of Stenographer-Clerk position in the office of the Purchasing Agent at Atlanta, Georgia in June, 1962, Carrier removed the stationery work from this position and assigned it to the Comptometer Operator position. Then by Bulletins Nos. 102 and 103, Carrier abolished the positions of Stenographer-Clerk, rate $426.21 per month, and Comptometer Operator, rate $395.16 per month, effective February 6, 1963. Concurrently, with the issuance of these bulletins, Carrier advertised two new position, that of Stenographer-Clerk at $400.00 per month, and Comptometer Operator-Clerk at $425.00 per month.

The occupant of the position of Stenographer-Clerk since February 6, 1963, contends that Carrier conferred on the Comptometer Operator the higher rate without transferring the higher rated duties and responsibilities of the position of Stenographer-Clerk. Claimant asserts a violation of Rule 40 and requests additional compensation, amounting to $26.21 per month, the difference between the rate she receives and the rate of the StenographerClerk position before February 6, 1963.

Carrier maintains that the rates were not transferred from one position to another, that the established positions were not discontinued and new ones created under new titles, and that the reassigned duties to the Comptometer Operator warranted the higher rate.

Rule 40 states that positions, not employes, shall be rated and that the transfer of rates of one position to another shall not be permitted except by negotiation. Although some clerical duties were transferred from the Stenographer-Clerk position to the Comptometer position, the position of Stenographer-Clerk after February 6, 1963, covered the same class of work, including the higher duties of the discontinued position. The rates of the two positions were traded; the higher rate was given to the ComptometerClerk position without the higher duties, whereas the Stenographer-Clerk received the lower rate while basically continuing the same duties.

Thus, in violation of Rule 40, there was a rating of employes, rather than a rating of positions. Accordingly, the claim is sustained, and Claimant is entitled to the higher rate.

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 the Agreement was violated.

AWARD