Joseph Sickles, Referee


                  (Brotherhood of Railway, Airlines, and

                  . ( Ste~msaip Clerks, Freight Handlers,

      ( R71press and Station :='ployes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

                    (Burlington Northern,


      Sr CIA!.%!: Claim of Committee of the Broterhood,

      m_AmME~ 1:~11T C_ v__.. s` ti h,._°

      (GL-8106) that:


      1. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when, effective January 1, 1975, it unilaterally reclassified the AgentOgerator position at E01a, T;linois to first Operator, and rate o= pay of the position.


            2. Carrier shat restore the classification of Agent-CDerato-

      to the position at FFOla, 111inois, and cosensate D. :J. ~K=ller a-^-d L.

      Cnak and/or their successors, 1f any, the eY7.Sting differ- berg°°-n

      15.37 and $5.26 uer hour for al' time ;corked at the lo;aer rate (=lus

      subsequent wage `ncreases), as well as interest paym=nt at the rate of

      eight per cent (85S) on tile amour_t due, effective January 1, 1975, and

      continuing so long as the violation. cor_tirues.


      OPINION CF BOARD: Claimant "=I!er occlaDies an Agent-Operator position

      at F.ola, I'iinois, Monday through Friday, and

      Claimant Cnak was assigned to said pcsiticn on Saturdays and Su^_days.

      Or December 23, 1974, Carrier, according tc Claimants, reclassified the

      DOsition to "First Operator" position and reduced the ra7e Of pay ~y


      e'e

      ven cents (») Den hOUr, as of January 1, 1975·


      Claimants assert that the Carrier action referred to above ,,ioiates Rule 6(C) of the Agre=.nent:


                "Positions (not emp10ye5) Shall be rated except as othen-1ise agreed t0. Changes in Classi'icaLion of -ositi.Ons or rates .._ Day call be made ^_r-ly by agreement b°-,;ereen do 1·gnage=ent and the Cari n ~~

                  r_ x__._,.at=On .


1
                  Award Number 21690 -'age 2

                  Docket Number CL-21510


carrier denies a violation, stating, in its initial reply to the claim, that it did not change the claSS':fication, :,tit abolished t:E DOS1t1Cri and re-established t::e _JCSitlJIa5 "First Operator" with '':'e same rate of pay as the other CDerator positions in tile office. y:u^ther, it stated that actual abolishment Of the Agent-Operator position (at .01a) was in progress and. the new position. would be bulletined.

 Claimants reply that the December 23, 174 notification, which stated that -he position wo"_d be chanced, and the rate reduced was :ever cancel is that:

            '".Then new positions are created or duties are materially increased, compensation shall be arranged to conform -with cositions of the same

                                  t

            class a5 Shown- l.n this schedule."


        The Organization presents the assertion. that the Claimants

performed substantially the same work after the alteration that they.
 performed prior to the beginning of 19975. y^ response, the Carrier
          i

points out thaw while said assertion may be the case, it stems iron _
                    "agent" the fact that there were . 0 duties to -perform at Zola because

they had been removed - and placed under the jurisdiction of the Aurora
 agent - a few years ago, at which time the Agent Telegrapher position
 should have been abolished. The Crgamizatioh appears to understand the
 Carrier's factual assertion in this regard.

 Thus, Carrier asks if (because it did net m=Fe the clang°_s at Zola when it should have) it is now forever precluded from rectifying the circumstance.

 Our difficulty :r=th iarrier'S Contention 15 that it seems t0 presume, without establisiing, that at a previous time it automatica_1iy could have contractually accomplished the result it desires here; but it does not suggest the manner of said accomplishment. The parties ',a-.,e presented, and relied upon, two paragraphs of Rule 6 (references t0 Appendix 3 d0 not appear t0 resolve the '~..dSti:ae;. ___.. carrier States
 . ·
 that its actions were pe=itted by :Rule O\3). ~;it, th..at rU-e r-efe-rS i0
 ,. ne'.: tosi-lons being created or duties being materia11y increased. _..,.

                  v L. to

record does not suggest O US tat eloher event was present at ~_e
 ev ious time referred to by Carrie--. Cn the other =sand, .Le 6 \ _.,
 - t, r, _ _
 year ~i a;, a change 1^ a C aSS-_=CaWOn O a vOSit_C1 JL:a_1 be -aC°_
 only by afiresemen t. ;while this r=esult may see= harsh, the par ties - not
 this Boa rd - authorized _.._ language which controls.
                  Award Number 21690 ?ase 3

                  Docket Plumber CL-2l5I0


We will sustain the claim except for tact portion . claim which seeks interest. We :have noted that Claimant u=11=_r ':as not suffered a loss in hourly compensation. due to certain. mer=er protections. =t is not the intention of this award that __".e receive more than the hourly amcunt established for the :.gent-Operator position.

        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 tfie Carrier and -the Employer involved-in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employer 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.


                    :. ;d A R D


Claim sustained to the extent stated in the Oninio^ of the Board.

                        1IATI0.1AL RAILROAD aDJ'USTiM'1 30AFw

                        By Order of Third Division.


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of August 1977.