(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline & Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express 6 Station Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Missouri Pacific Railroad Company

1. The Carrier violated the Rules of the Clerks' Agreement at San Antonio, Texas, when, beginnin arbitrarily abolish round-the-clock Group 2 Caller positions and assign all of the work to Group 1 employes.

 2. Carrier shall now be required to compensate Callers A. Rodriquez, J. N. Grier, L. A. Breiten and R. C. Beeman, who became furloughed Group 2 employee as a result of C beginning October 13, 1970, and continuing each work day thereafter, in addition to any other compensation Claimants might receive from Carrier until violation is corrected.

 3. Carrier shall also be required to reimburse the aforementioned furloughed Claimants for any Hospital Association Dues and Dependents' Health and Welfare Insurance Premiums the furloughed Claimants may have to pay.

OPINION OF BOARD: The Organization contends that the Carrier violated the Clerk's
 Agreement when on October 13, 1970, without an agreement;- it
 did arbitrarily abolish four round-the-clock Group 2 Caller Positions and assigned
 all of the work to Group 1 employees.

 The Carrier contends that on that day it initiated its "Pickle" system, or perpetual car inventory at San Antonio, which system obviates the need for onthe-ground check of or more hours to class one work, that would indicate that it was proper to assign him up to five hours Group 2 or Group 3 work. The Carrier argued that this reassignment of the work the Carrier to make technological, operational and organizational changes and in consideration of the protective benefits provided by this Agreement, the Carrier shall have the right to transfer work and/or transfer employees throughout the system."


      It is not denied that the work of these "crew callers" had been in existence for 50 years. Nor is it denied that the employees proposed to the Carrier that the positions not be abolished, but that certain Group 1 work be assigned to the Group 2 positions, with an increase in the rate of pay of $1.00 per day, which the Carrier declined to do. Nor is it denied that the Carrier offered to transfer the Group 2 roster to the Group 1 roster, which offer the employees declined.


      In the interpretations of the Agreement of February 7, 1965, Article 111 Section 1 (a), the following compromise interpretation is set forth:


              1. Impiemeating agreements will be required in the following situations:


                  (a) Whenever the proposed change involves the transfer of employees from one seniority district or roster to another, as such seniority districts or rosters existed on February 7, 1965. The underlined language "above quoted is intended to mea that seniority districts or rosters existing on the effective date of the February 7, 1965 Agreement are not to be changed insofar as the application of the aforesaid agreement is concerned, except as the result of an implementing agreement or other agreement acceptable to the interested parties."


      It is clear from the record that no such agreement was reached in this case. The fact that such a distinction no longer exists on this property does not diminish the requirement that before a transfer from one seniority district or roster to another takes place it has to be done by mutual agreement. See Awards 1!17614, 17617 (Dugan), 17364 (Yagoda).


            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


i
                    Award Number 19988 Page 3

                    Docket Number CL-19560


        The Agreement was violated.


                      A W A R D


        The Claim is sustained.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD


        ~ ~~ By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: l/L ·//[/. ~ ~
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 12th day of October 1973.
        Carrier Members' Dissent to Award 19988. Docket CL-19560


                  (Referee Alfred H. Brent)


By ignoring the principal facts in the case, the majority has arrived at an erroneous conclusion which has neither agreement language nor logic to support it. The Award is unenforceable because of the fact that the Board attempts to interpret the Agreement of February 7, 1965, over which it has no jurisdiction.

 It is difficult to understand how the majority of competent persons could miss the point so completely except by deliberately ignoring and overlooking all of the pertinent :acts and thereby deliberately creating an extremely unfair and restrictive condition not provided nor even contemplated by the parties to the applicable agreements.

 The Board completely ignores the .fact the applicable agreement does not provide any reservat'on of work between Group I, Group II and Group III positions and employes. The majority completely ignores all of the awards cited by Carrier in support of its statement and position. See Third Division Awards 2011, 61140, 7167, 9047, 11988, 13218, 13220, 14050, 18621, and Award 17 of the Special Board of Adjustment No. 564 involving the same parties as are here involved.

 The majority failed to recognize that Group I positions and employes have always participated :n the performance of caller work in San Antonio.

 The majority also failed to recognize Carrier's right to make technological, operational. and organizational changes and its right to transfer _work throughout the system without negotiations with the Clerks' Organization.

 Carrier did not desire to transfer employes; however, when the Clerks' Organization complained, Carrier offered to permit claimants to follow the work in question, but the Clerks' Organization refused to participate in an arrangement that would permit claimants to follow the work they contend they are deprived of. If claimants experienced any loss, it is the direct result of the Clerks' Organization's refusal to negotiate.

 In order to sustain the Employes' position, the majority then turns to the formal interpretations of Agreement of February 7, 1965, Article III, Section l(a), and sustains the claim on the finding that "It is clear from the record that no such agreement was reached in this case", apparently completely ignoring ',;he fact Carrier was not obligated to negotiate an implementing agreement if i roster to another, which there was not.
        Carrier 1'embers' Dissent to Award 19988. Docket CL-19560 page 2


Great injustice is done and a monetary windfall to employes who have not experienced any loss of earnings results from the majority's failure to recognize the pertinent facts, applicable agreement provisions, the many awards cited supporting Carrier's action, and the Board's assumption of authority to interpret the ACreement of FebrrarY 7. 1955. The Boards award is totally without agreement support, and for the reasons set forth herein, we dissent.

                              w. B. JO?DES


                              P. C. CARTER


                              y i ~Ccc~-c..c~

                              FI. P. I4. BRAID:,'COD


                              G. L. 14AYLOR


                              G. hi. YOUHIN(I