OPINION OF BOARD: There is sufficient evidence in the record to conclude that the duties and responsibilities of the Block Operators' positions at New Lexington were "substantially changed" as required in Regulation 8-A-1 (c) of the Agreement. Referring to the factual question of whether or not there has been a substantial change in the duties and responsibilities of the Block Operators' positions, Carrier said that "there is actually no such dispute in the instant case." In fact, Carrier stated that:

"So far as the Carrier is able to determine the basis of the claim, the question to be decided by your Honorable Board is whether in the circumstances herein present, the action taken on August 1, 1960, with respect to the Block Operators at New Lexington constituted a substantial change in their duties or responsibilities thereby requiring, in accordance with Regulation 8-A-1(c) of the applicable Agreement, negotiations with the Organization with a view to considering a possible adjustment in the rates of pay of Block Operators at New Lexington, Ohio."

Regulation 8-A-1(c) says:

"When the duties or responsibilities of an established Group 2 position are substantially changed, the rate of pay and/or condition of employment may be changed for such position on the basis of like positions on the same Region as agreed to, in writing between the duly accredited representative and the proper officer of the Company."

Carrier contends that the work at this location has diminished over the rears, which justifies a reduction rather than an increase in the rate of pay. The Carrier also says "that rates of pay now being paid to the block operators at this location were established when considerably more traffic was being handled than is now being moved. . " There was more traffic dur;ng the ten-day period between March 21 to 31, 1932 than in April, 1961.

On November 8, 1962, Carrier wrote to the Employes' General Chairman, i- part, as follows:

"In the letter referred to above, you advised that the Employes would welcome a joint study at New Lexington to determine the added duties and responsibilities placed upon the Operators subsequent to August 1, 1960.

We have no objections to entering into such a study, provided that the study also includes a comparison of the work presently performed by the Operators at New Lexington with the work performed by them in 1932, when the rates of pay for the position in question were last established.

If you concur with the foregoing and will so advise, arrangements will be made accordingly."

Employes replied on November 15, 1962, in part, as follows:

"This dispute does not involve rate of pay established 30 years ago. This claim arose on August 1 1960 and the change in duties and responsibilities occurred as of that date, and Regulation 8-A-1(c) governs. We are willing to enter into a joint study, as outlined in my letter of June 28, 1962 . . . ."

There is no probative evidence in the record to show the basis upon which the 1932 rates were established. There was no job evaluation. The mere fact that traffic may or may not have decreased from 1932 until 1960 is not conclusive, nor is it a material criteria to set rates under Regulation 8-A-1(c). That Rule says that the rate of pay "may be changed for such position on the basis of like positions on the same Region as agreed to. in writing. . :' It contemplates a comparison of like positions in the same Region at the time when the duties and responsibilities were changed, and not a comparison of rates that existed thirty years prior thereto. No reasonable rule of contract interpretation can accept Carrier's position. Several Agreements have been negotiated by the parties since 1932.

Neither party has shown the rates of pay for comparable positions in the same Region. In the absence of such a showing, this Board has no authority to fix rates of pay. For this reason, this Board can only return the claim to the parties and direct them to negotiate rates on the basis set out in Regulation 8-A-1(c).

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 parties have not negotiated rates of pay as provided in the Agreement.

AWARD