OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was the occupant of a relief position with the following duty stations and hours of assignment: On Monday he worked on the agent-telegrapher position at Harlan, Iowa, hours from 8:00 A. M. to 5:00 P. M. On Tuesday and Wednesday, he worked on the telegrapherclerk position at Council Bluffs, Iowa, hours 8:45 A. M. to 5:45 P. M. On Thursday and Friday, he worked on the telegrapher-clerk position at Carroll, Iowa, with assigned hours 8:45 P. M. to 5:45 A. M. Saturday and Sunday were his regularly assigned rest days.

Carrier's Chief Dispatcher issued a notice that Claimant's relief position would be abolished effective 12:01 A. M., September 28, 1965 (Tuesday). Claimant worked his assignment on Monday, September 27th, at Harlan. On September 17, 1965, Bulletin 34 was issued by the Carrier advertising as a new position Relief Position No. 3 which was to be established effective Saturday, October 2, 1965 to furnish rest day relief on the telegrapher-clerk position at Council Bluffs, Iowa, on Saturday and Sunday; on the agenttelegrapher position at Harlan on Monday, and, on the 12 Noon to 8:00 P. M. telegrapher-clerk position at Clarion on Tuesday and Wednesday. Headquarters for this position was Council Bluffs, Iowa, the same headquarters prior to the elimination of the two days of work at Carroll, Iowa.

Claimant placed his bid on the new position and was awarded the assignment. Having lost 4 days of work in his work week beginning September 27, 1965 (Monday), he presented time slips to the Chief Dispatcher for a day's pay, each day, September 28, 29, 30 and October 1, 1965, basing his claim on the 5 day week guarantee. The Chief Dispatcher declined to allow the time slips on the grounds that the original relief position was properly abolished adhering to all the time provisions of the governing Agreement.

The Organization, petitioning this Board on behalf of the Claimant, relies principally on Rule 8 (e) (5) of the Agreement, which reads as follows:

The Organization arguendo states categorically that when the relief position was changed, Claimant had the right to retain the position or to exercise displacement privileges, only then could Carrier rebulletin his position; further, that since Claimant chose to retain his position, he, in effect, occupied his regular assignment at all times.

Carrier propounds the argument that it has, in the exercise of its managerial prerogatives, the power and the right to abolish positions adhering to carefully drawn time provisions; that, essentially, this is what has been done in this case, and that Claimant should have exercised his seniority rights under Rule 22.

The issue thus framed is whether or not we have in this case a simple change of assignment, as advocated by the Organization, or a true abolishment of the position, as advocated by the Carrier.

Under the circumstances of this case, we are not questioning Carrier's right to abolish positions. This right has been well recognized in many awards of this Board. We must, however, look beyond Carrier's mere declaration of abolishment to ascertain whether in fact it constituted a true abolishment. Considering the facts as outlined infra, it is our judgment that Carrier's action in this case was a change of assignment, rather than an abolishment. Hence, we will sustain the claim as submitted.

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