Insofar as the second exception is concerned, there can be no dispute whatsoever but that the installation of the teleprinter receiver at East Minneapolis Yard Office did not and could not have constituted a substitution for positions coming under the scope of the East Minneapolis Yard Office.

It is therefore clear that the claim in this case constitutes solely an attempt by the organization to require the establishment of telegrapher positions at a point where no such positions have ever previously existed. The carrier again reiterates that this Board should be consistent with the proposition set forth in that part of is Award No. 8656 reading:

"The Division has no supported the proposition that when an automatic machine is installed to perform a certain function, the employe who previously performed that function is entitled to remain simply to watch the automatic machine operate."

The carrier would go even further and say that where a machine is installed to automatically perform a function which a telegrapher had never been employed to perform, a telegrapher should not be required to be employed to watch the automatic machine operate.

The carrier submits that this claim should be denied in its entirety. Attention of this Board is again called to the fact that the General Chairman is on record with the carrier to the effect that this claim was not presented or progressed as a monetary claim.

OPINION OF BOARD: Prior to June 16, 1961, communications to and from the East Minneapolis Yard Office were handled by telephone or by messenger. Messenger service was generally handled by clerks. Only rush communications were handled by telephone. No telegraphers were ever employed at that Yard Office.

On June 16, 1961, a teleprinter receiver was installed. This machine has no keyboard or any uther device through which a message can be sent It is exclusively a receiving device. Communications received by the machine are torn off and executed by clerks. There is no evidence that the machine requires any attention other than the insertion of a role of paper.

Petitioner contends that the reception of reconsignment and diversion messages from this machine requires an operator within the meaning of Rule 1 (a) of the Agreement which provides that it covers, among other employes, "teleprinter operators and operators of other mechanical telegraph transmission or reception devices * * * "

The issue is whether the clerk who tore off the messages from the teleprinter was an "operator" of the reception device. We think not. The mere insertion of the paper in the machine and tearing off the messages is not such work contemplated and covered in the Scope Rule. No "operator" functions are involved. The clerk who performs these duties is in no respect different from the messenger who delivered the communication or the clerk who took the message on the telephone. There is no probative evidence in the record that this messenger and telephone services were previously performed exclusively by telegraphers. On the contrary, it was most often done by clerks.

The installation of the receiving device did not deprive any telegrapher of positions in the East Minneapolis Yard Office.

That the parties waived oral hearing;

That the Carrier did not violate the Agreement.

AWARD