OPINION OF BOARD: Petitioners herein contend that Carrier violated the Agreement when it transferred work for relay seniority district to the road seniority district (Omaha district) by unilaterally removing three telegraphers in Falls City, Nebraska and creating two new positions at said city.

Rule 11, (a-2), which petitioners allege Carrier violated in this instance, provides as follows:

"Seniority rights of employes shall extend over the districts as established as of January 1, 1940, and the seniority districts shall not be subject to change except by mutual agreement by the parties to this Agreement"

Carrier closed its relay office at Falls City, Nebraska, effective December 17, 1963 and abolished the three positions of telegrapher-leverman. The Carrier then established two (2nd and 3rd trick) telegrapher-clerk positions at the Falls City, Nebraska depot and reclassified the Star Agent position at said depot to Agent-telegrapher, effective December 17, 1963.

Petitioners claim that the work of the jobs abolished remain in the relay seniority district because the work of the abolished positions remained to be performed and said work was not discontinued; that the Carrier could not unilaterally transfer the positions involved to the road district of the Omaha . .district without agreement; that Carrier cannot unilaterally change seniority districts which thereby take away an employe's seniority rights acquired under the Agreement .

Carrier rests its defense to this claim upon the premises that when it closed the relay office in question at Falls City, Nebraska, it discontinued all relay and related work formerly performed at this location because of technological advances and improved equipment when it installed automatic interlocking equipment; that the Organization violated Article V, Section 1 (a) of the August 21, 1954 Agreement when it failed to name the claimant in Item 3 of the Statement of Claim; that there wasn't a transfer of relay work to the road division and there has been no change in the respective seniority districts.

The Organization, in its oral panel discussion before this Board, vigorously contended that inasmuch as the Carrier, in its ex parte submission, admits that the duties of a Relay Telegrapher overlaps with the duties of a Division Telegrapher because either may be required to handle train orders, then

the Organization sustained its burden of proof of showing that there was a transfer of work in regard to the handling of train orders and therefore a violation of Rule 11 (a-2) of the Agreement.

This Board was confronted with a similar issue in Award No. 16501. The Board in said Award stated:

"We are unconvinced by Organization's arguments that Carrier violated the parties' Agreement. There is no evidence that the Scope Rule was violated. All work under examination was to be performed by employes covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement. Furthermore there is nothing in the Agreement reserving relaying of local messages to train orders exclusively to employes on the Relay District roster . . . .

Inasmuch as we feel that said Award No. 16501 is controlling in this matter, and not finding it palpably erroneous, we must deny the claim.

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 not violated.

AWARD