(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employee ( (Formerly Transportation-Communication Division, BRAC) PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Reading Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Transportation-Com
 munication Division, BRAC, on the Reading Company, T-C 5805,
 that:

 1. Reading Company violated our current Agreement beginning October 5, 1969 when and because they abolished the Telegrapher Clerk's position at "JN" Newberry Jct., with hours of 9:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M. with lunch period from 2:00 A.M. to 3:00 A.M., that was held by J. Roscoe and Relief Man R. K, Bartley, without proper notice and by unilateral action.

 2. Account of the above violation the Reading Company is required to pay the senior idle telegrapher, extra in preference a day's pay at the rate they would have received if used to properly fill this position. The following men were available for the first week following the violation:







3. This is a continuing claim made until the violation is corrected with the restoration of work to our craft. A joint check of Company records to be made to determine proper claimants and the amount due,

 4. The Reading Company is required to pay J. Roscoe, R. K. Bartley and any other employees adversely affected, the difference of what they made and what they should have made if this arbitrary abolishment was not put into effect, plus all actual necessary expenses incurred by this abolishment, such as mileage, deadheading, and any other expenses.


OPINION OF BOARD: Carrier contends that as a result of a decrease in train
 movements during Midnight to 7;00 A.M., coupled with the
 fact Carrier initiated a Tracer System, there remained no work to be performed
 by a telegrapher at Newberry Junction. Consequently, Carrier notified the
 Organization that the third trick telegrapher position would be abolished on
 October 4, 1969.

 It is the position of the Organization that it had agreed with Carrier to permit the abolishment of Newberry only with the understanding that all third trick clerical positions would be abolished concurrently. A third trick clerical position, however, remained at Newberry Junction. Carrier's action, the Organization feels, violated the Agreement reached at conference with Carrier on August 8 and 12, 1969 as well as the June 1, 1966 Agreement.

 Carrier defends the abolishment on the basis that the work had diminished to a point which no longer It cites section 4 of the June 1, 1966 Agreement to support its actions.

 The issue for determination herein is whether Carrier agreed to abolish all clerical positions before abolishing the telegrapher position in question?

 The Organization maintains that by letter dated August 24, 1969 it confirmed the Agreement reached at conference with Carrier officers on August 8 and 12. The letter reads in pertinent part: "·..On this basis I said that I would agree to the abolishment provided; 1 - That abolishment would take place after the clerical positions were abolished". In response thereto, on September 9, 1969, Carrier's Manager of Labor Relations wrote the Organization's General Chairman that "the Carrier will not effectuate the abolishment of the telegrapher's position at Newberry Junction presently held by Mr. J. T. Roscoe until such time as all clerical positions at this location era abolished concurrently,"
There is no question that had these letters constituted the entire understanding between the effect thereto. However, it is also a basic rule of contract construction that before an enforceable contract is entered into the parties moat mutually assent to the terms thereof. It is hornbook law that if they fail to mutually agree on the terms of the contract, then no enforceable contract exists.

 I
                    Docket Number TE-19372


When Carrier's Manager of Labor Relations wrote on September 26, 1969 that, "In line with our previous understanding as outlined in my letter of September 9, 1969, this provides for the retention of the third trick telegrapher's position at Newberry Junction until such time as we discontinue the third trick clerical 1050 machine operator's position at that point," he indicated that he had not agreed to the terms the Organization understood to be in effect following the August 24 and September 9 exchange of letters. How this misunderstanding came about is of no concern to this Board. We conclude chat mutual assent wanting herein, no valid contract existed as the Organization contends. And finding no further bar to Carrier's actions, we find that the position in question was abolished pursuant to the June 1, 1966 Agreement.

        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.


                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division

ATTEST: a· _

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of May, 1973.

 . . . .a:i~.