(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Bangor and Aroostook Railroad Company

1. Carrier violated Rules 1, 3 and 29, among others of the Clerks' Agreement, signed September 21, 1950, as amended, when it abolished the position of "Switchboard Ope unilaterally distributed the remaining work to other seniority districts and to employees fully exempted from all the rules of the agreement.

 2. Carrier shall be required to compensate Mrs. Pearl H. Johnston, incumbent of the abolished position for all pay losses, including subsequent wage increases, fringe benefits, insurance premium payments, vacation credits, holidays and interest at 6% compounded, continuous from November 15, 1971 until rectified.

 OPINION OF BOARD: We will first dispose of Petitioner's contention that Car
 rier violated the time limit provisions of Article V of the
 August 21, 1954 Agreement. Claim was initiated under date of November 17, 1971,
 substantially as in the Statement of Claim before the Board, and was denied by
 Carrier's Treasurer in letter of November 26, 1971. Claim was appealed on
 December 14, 1971 by the Organization's General Chairman to the Carrier's Manager
 of Personnel. A two-day conference, January 26 and 27th, 1972, was held between
 the parties after which, under date of March 24, 1972, karriar's Manager of Per
 sonnel adviscd that the claim remained denied. In letter to that Carrier Officer
 on May 3, 1972, the General Chairman directed attention to the Carrier's viola
 tion of the Time Limit rule. Under date of "lay 9, 1972, the Manager of Personnel
 advised the General Chairman, in part, as follows:

This issue has been resolved against the Carrier in National Disputes Committee Decision 15, i.e.:


        "The National Disputes Committee rules that there was no extension of the time within which the Superintendent was required to render his decision on appeal, and finds that such decision was not rendered within the applicable time limit. In this connection the National Disputes Committee points out that where either party has clearly failed to comply with the requirements of Article V the claim should be disposed of under Article V at the stage of handling in which such failure becomes apparent. If the Carrier has defaulted, the claim should be allowed at chat level as presented; and if the employee representatives have defaulted, the claim should be withdrawn.


              DECISION: The claims shall be allowed as presented, on the basis of failure of the Carrier to comply with the requirements of Article V of the Agreement of August 21, 1954."


We likewise find there was no extension of the time limits within which the Manager of Personnel was required to render a decision in writing from the date the claim was presented to him on appeal. Verual denials are not afforded in the language of the Time Limit rule. (Accord Awards 15457, Kenan; 14689, Englestein; 14758 Ritter; 17083, Jones; 19096, Hayes.)

 In compliance with National Disputes Committee Decision 16, the claim is payable under the provisions of the Time Limit rule from the date of claim, November 15, 1971, up to the date of the receipt of the denial letter dated March 24, 1972 by Carrier's Manager of Personnel.

 With respect to the merits of the Claim: We note that the same parties were involved in Docket CL-19900, resulting in Award No. 19783, in which Petitioner's claim was base of Clerk-Typist was transferred across seniority district lines to the position o! Switchboard Operator and other duties thereof given to an employs whose position was excepted fro had violated Rule 1 (b) of the Agreement "when it transferred part of the work involved to an employee in another seniority district and assigned the remaining work of the abolished position to a non-contract employee, without conference and agreement with the Organization." as provided by Rule 29.

 In this dispute, effective November 15, 1971 the Carrier transferred certain duties back from whence they originated and discontinued the performance of certain other duties (switchboard operation) by means of technological changes (institution of direct telephone service to each individual department and office.)
                      Award Number 19999 Page 3

                      Docket Number CL-20098


        Carrier states in this disptmu:


        "Eased on the precise language of Section 1, Article III of the February 7, 1965, Agreement, it appeared that this Agreement took precedent over and superseded the Rules in effect on the property. It was on the basis of this interpretation that the transfer of work from the Dis. bursement Section Seniority Roster of the Accounting Department was made to the Treasury Department. accordance with the provisions of this National Agreement. However, on page 10 of the agreed upon interpretations of the February 7th Agreement, it stipulated that implementing agreements will be required in the following


              '(a) Whenever the proposed change involves the transfer of employes from one seniority district or roster to another as such seniority districts or rosters existed on February 7, 1965.


              (b) Whenever the proposed change, under the agreement in effect prior to February 7, 1965, would not have been permissible without conference and agreement with representatives of the Organization.'


        "When the restriction covered by paragraph (b) above was discovered, it was then apparent that the t Accounting to Treasury was in violation of the Agreement of February 7th as well as Rules 3 and 29(a) of the work rules in effect on the property. There was no implementing agreement providing for the transfer, therefore, the Carrier has ro other alternative than to return the work to the seniority district from which it came and where it still belonged."


Carrier further states:
        "Obviously the work was improperly assigned to the Switchboard Operator and was restored to the seniority district where it belonged,,

                    Award Number 19999 Page 4

                    Docket Number CL-20098


Carrier restored the work which it required to be performed to the seniority district from which it had been improperly transferred, which was a proper restoration and one upon which the Petitioner had based the complaint in Docket CL-19900 and upon which a sustaining decision was rendered in Award 19783. The question is moot and, therefore, we dismiss the claim for all dates subsequent to March 24, 1972.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjusrment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and ':colds:


        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;

 ThdL Lhis Division of the Adjusu~iUnt Board lids jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

 That the Carrier violated the Agreement to the extent indicated in the Opinion.
                    A W A R D


        Claim sustained to the extent indicated in the Opinion.


                            NATIO:;AL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By t;rder of Third Division


ATTEST: ~~ 444~14=
          cutive Secrecary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of October 1973.