(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, ( Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE.



1. Carrier violated the Memorandum Agreement of February 20, 1969, commonly known as the Mobile Agency Agreement, which became effective January 1, 1969, when it established position of Mobile Agency Route No. 3, effective January 12, 1970, and headquartered such position in Carrier's Dallas Freight Station, West Dallas, Texas, a location and station where no employe subject to the TCU Agreement was regularly assigned, and failed and refused to establish a position of Assistant Agent-Telegrapher, as required by the Memorandum Agreement. (Carrier's File 302-72).

 2. Carrier shall now be required to compensate the senior idle Telegrapher, extra in preference, eight hours' pay per day at the pro rata rate of the established rate for Assistant Agent-Telegrapher positions, six days per week, beginning January 12, 1970, and continuing until the violation is corrected.

 OPINION OF HOARD: By notice issued in October 1969, effective as of
 the close of business on January 10, 1970, Carrier
 abolished the agency positions at Harrys, Eagle Ford and Mesquite, Texas,
 and effective January 12, 1970 Management established a Mobile Agency
 Route No. 3 position to serve the foregoing locations--working Monday
 through Saturday, rest day Sunday, with listed headquarters at Dallas,
 Texas. When he was in Dallas, the incumbent of this position performed
 his work at Carrier's freight facility.

 - The instant claim is based on Petitioner's contention that
 Carrier violated the applicable Mobile Agency Agreement effective January 1,
 1969 between Carrier and the Transportation-Communication Employes Union
 when the subject Mobile Agency position was headquartered at a station
 where no employe subject to the TCU Agreement was regularly assigned, and
 Carrier failed to establish a position of Assistant Agent-Telegrapher at
 that location. These contentions are based on Paragraphs 1(d) and 2(a)
 of the involved Mobile Agency Agreement, which read respectively as
 follows:


        "1(d) Mobile Agency positions will have designated headquarters at stations where an employe subject to the TCU Agreement is regularly assigned, in addition to such Mobile Agency positions."


        "2(a) If it is necessary to increase the station

        force at the base station or headquarters of the

        Mobile Agent or Agents as a result of the establish

        ment of 'Mobile Agency Service,' one Assistant Agent-

        Telegrapher position will be established with.

        designated headquarters, which will be advertised

        to employes holding seniority under agreements between

        the parties signatory hereto."


When the subject Mobile Agency position was established, no employe subject to the TCU Agreement was already regularly assigned to the subject freight facility, which is located in the western portion of Dallas. However, T&P Junction Tower--located in the eastern portion of Dallas, 7.2 rail miles distant from the freight facility--contained positions to which employes (Operators-Levermen) covered by the TCU Agreement were already regularly assigned. The primary duties of the tower employes are incidental to the interlocker operation and the handling of such train orders as are necessary. Moreover, it was unnecessary to increase the force at the freight facility or elsewhere in Dallas as a result of the Mobile Agency Service. Carrier therefore maintains no violation of the Mobile Agency Agreement occurred because Dallas comprised one station--the freight facility and the T&P Junction Tower being within the same station limits. Carrier further asserts Petitioner seeks to use above-quoted Paragraph 2(a) for a purpose for which it was never intended. Finally, Carrier contends Petitioner is unable to identify any employe subject to the TCU Agreement who suffered any loss in the instant case, which means that a penalty for which no justification exists is here being sought.

 The record establishes that the freight facility where the
 Mobile Agent No. 3 is in fact headquartered and T&P Junction Tower are
 not in the same station. This is not simply a "timetable fiction"
 because, as indicated above, the two facilities are several miles apart.
 It taxes one's credulity to believe that the tower employes could assist
 Mobile Agent No. 3 in the performance of his work, as contemplated
 by
                                                Paragraph 2(b) of the Mobile Agency Agreement. The claim has merit.

                    Award Number 21570 Page 3

                    Docket Number CL-20946


        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 violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim sustained.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: 4,416 da

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of June 1977.