(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship ( Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and ( Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company

1. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when it transferred the work of relaying teletype message traffic from "WI" Office, Battle Creek, Michigan to machines or similar devices located in Toronto, Canada.

 2. Carrier shall compensate the following Claimants for all wage loss and expenses incurred who were formerly assigned to positions in "WI" Office, as a result:




3. Carrier shall further compensate the senior idle telegrapher, extra in preference, eight (8) hours' pay for each date the alleged violation continues, commencing February 15, 1972.

 4. Carrier shall arrange a joint check of its records to determine amounts due Claimants hereunder.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Prior to March of 1968 the Carrier maintained a message
 relay office at battle Creek, Michigan known as the
 "WI" Office. The work performed at said office involved the relaying of
 teletype messages between local stations east and west of Battle Creek
 on local circuits and the Carrier's four other message relay offices.

 In March of 1968 the wire circuits between the five relay offices were connected to the wire circuits of the Canadian National Tele-Communications Company. Basically this is a computerized electronic switcher designed to relay messages. The effect of this change was to cause the claimants to lose their positions.


                  wcket liumbes CT'


                            work previously

                            ertain of theem..10yes of th

                          hat c ed by at this was a

'The Or is tawny being iarahateit xe~it d~ational
 perform at tcoof the We h~g ier .tee men underthe Washington

 Rele
 ~e Wider Ittations had by

 ordination of the opera

 Railway whi
    ch could only be accomplis protection Agre~ent.

                                        a technological nt.

change was t;ese Mediation Agreeme
 job
 Carrier contends that the 1965
 change permitted b
        The Y Article III

                                      of the February..7r here invo

                                            lved does


        At the outset let us state that the

                                changMediation Agreement.


        under Aran Is

              ticle III of the FebTU the transfer of work

      arY 7 s 1965

      fall an terms the ehang_ ° n Case involved tcarrier


not come thin its tughou system · c oUPSWJ outside
 o= emml°Vea w g to a Co I atious ere involved
 transfer °f the change h tion
 system.
                  find no basis for holding m

          theT, we in the Washington ~'otec

          ,ur, as described


              anon" -Communications CO ~1 °f the legal

                                  and o~eratio to supP°rt it

    to be a It coordin a an

    eement. The Canadian oele y

              with identi have failed d the

              corporation ,he em~lo~ed Raceway ar ante it j

    Teqaisites 0 National Railw~' Co,,I)szrj t respect the


    the Canada that the Comm-Ul

    assertion' W to the ContrarY·

    allegation mains a mere t a sbowing wbether there

    same It r absen

    the corporate Person f

            e case must be 32 Of

                      resc

                                  ement,ue o


    bas been a violation of

            Rae 32 )ro%,Ides In Part:

                  _ pE SERVICE

            "RT.E 32


                                              used f°x

              'jCT.E I. ox simila o devices , either

            " chines as installe at

            ~a~ Printing to = receiving communications


            ftex referred to as mach~AIs and V^ade a part

            transmitting an Exhibit as may be

            ox both, here on the attached similar machina by emPl°Yes

            and such other be OP except as

            locations sh°`m shah relletraphers'

            of t i ag in Te egraph Offic ~ a ins led b The order ° of this Article.


            xepxesented 9 h IC, provided in paxagxap

                  Award Number 20733 Page 3

                  Docket Number CL-20566


        "(b) Should the Company desire to make any installation or change not provided for in paragraph 'A' of this Article, thirty (30) days' written advance notice containing details of proposed change shall be given the General Chairman and the matter shall thereafter be handled in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act as amended."


The Organization alleges that the Switcher-Computer falls within the definition "Printing telegraph machines or similar devices used for transmitting and receiving messages of record". This assertion is based on the fact that it does more than just the relay work previously performed at the "WI" Off tape for possible later transmissions. In fact delayed transmissions are made from the magnetic tape. This is analogized to the maintenance of messages on perforated tape previously done at the "WI" Office. In this regard the Organization contends that the Switcher-Computer is a substitute for the teletype devices including the tape perforators, tape reperforators, transmitter distributers and printer receivers. The employee allege that this substitution could only have been properly accomplished pursuant to an Agreement as called for in Rule 32(b).

 We are persuaded that the Switcher-Computer performs functions sufficiently similar to the teletype devices located at the "WI" office so as to be considered "similar devices" under Rule 32. The change here involved was of a character that required handling in accordance with Rule 32(b). The Carrier failed to do so and such failure constituted a violation of the Agreeme
        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, 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 Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was violated.

                  Award Number 20733 Page 4

                  Docket Number CL-20566

                  A W A R D


        Claim sustained.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: -am P"44W ....4
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of May 1975.