(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, l Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes ( (Formerly Transportation-Communication Division, BRAC) PARTIES TO DISPL"CE: (The Denver and-Rio Grande Western Railroad Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Transportation-Com
 munication Division, BRAC, on the Denver & Rio Grande West
 ern Railroad Company, TC-5848, that:

 1, Carrier ~,iolated the Agreement wh:n, effective 12:01 PM Tuesday, March 2, 1971, it abolished the positions of first, second, third, and relief Telephoner-TUwerman, ioiith Denver Tower, Denver, Colorado, and transferred the work of operating the signals and switches comnrisin- such interlocking installation, formerly perfo not covered by the Telc·;raphers' Agreement, namely train dispatchers.

 =, Carrier ball, effective :-larch 2, 1971, compensate the senior idle telerapher (extra in prcference) nn the Colorado Division, eight hours' pay at the pro rata rite paid at South Denver Tower, for each shift three (3) shifts per day, :;ev,,n d t· n per week, until the work formerly performed by Telephoncr-C,,werman .it :;o-ith ieiiverCower and no,., bcin·; performed by train dispatchers, is returned Co employees covered by the Telcgraphors' Agreement.

 3. Carricr shill return the work of operating signals and switches comprising South I)rnvcr Interl.ockcr to employees covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement.

 OPINION OF BOARD: llic Organization claims that the Carrier violated the terms
 of the agreement between the parties when the Carrier abol
 ished the South Denver Tower and transferred the work to the CTC Board in Den
 ver, which is under the control of the Train Dispatchers. The Organization
 also claims that the subject of this dispute is identical to .and should be con
 sidered with Docket TE-18980, which involves the abolishment of the work of the
 Towermen at the Pueblo Junction Tower and the transfer of the work to the CTC
 Board in Denver, where the work is performed by Train Dispatchers. Docket TE
 18980 will be heard separately.

 This Board i:; limited to the review of the facts and arguments raised by the Parties when the matter was handled on the property. In this case the Organization never raised the question of the violation of the 1943 Special Agreement between the pa in its presentation to this Board, the Organization argued, "In other words we base our claim to thi,. work by the terms of the Special Agreement (Supplement


The claim that this special agreement was violated cannot be considered by this Board as it is n Scope Rule of the Agreement was violated is properly before us, but it is not supported by the evidence. This Board has held that the Carrier has the right to abolish a position listed in the wage scale or scope rule and to assign to other crafts the remaining work that is not exclusively telegraphers' work. See Award 0344 (Begley), #11120 (Dolnick), (`12484 (Sempliner), #12695 (Hamilton). Award 12757 (Seff) is particularly pertinent. In this case the telegraph work decrcascd and the position of clerk-telegrapher was abolished... "This Board has consi::tently held in many cases that when a position has been abolished, as here, and the remaining duties, sometimes performed by telegraphers, are of cleric belong, exclusively to the telegraphers, nor does the Scope Rule contain any such practice, where the major duties have been abolished and those remaining are of a clerical nature,"

 In the instant case, after the duties of the Towermen in South Denver have been abolished, the r levers on the existing CTC Board at Denver, which has been operated by and continues to be operatr.d by the Train Dispatcl·nrs.

        FINDINGS: 'Aic 'fhi.ru hivicion of the Adju:;tmont Board, mpon the whole record and 01.1 ~_hc : vidcncc, finds and hold:;:


        11iat the. par vies waived oral lwnr~ii>;:


lhar tln· t'.a-ri, r and I hc· ImpIoyV·.. ;Twr1lvOlI 111 Chi s, dispute are respectively Carrior .;ud I'mployes within tl;'. ;W;Win; Of the (ailway Labor Act, as approved .tune '?1, 1'-34;

 That this I;ii,i.sion of the Adju:;tment :So:lrcl leas jur'%sdiction over the dispute involved hertiii; and

        That the Aer,,ment was not violated.


                        A W A R D


        Claim dcrie:'


                NATIONAL RA%T.2OAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                r iy Order of Third Division


ATTEST: ,1,~ ~~,
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, 111inois, this 14th day ofFebruary 1973.