(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, ( Express and Station Employee PARTIES TO DISRT~E: (Southern Pacific Transportation Company ( (Pacific Lines)

(a) The Southern Pacific Transportation Company violated the Clerks' Agreement when it removed work from Sacramento District Roster No. 2 and placed it on Sacramento District Roster No. 1; and

 (b) The Southern Pacific Transportation Company shall now be required to compensate employes E. H. McManus, N. C. Camp, K. R. Brown, D. D. Heller, R. L. Larocque, Jeff Nichols, R. K. Edgman, R. J. Miller, R. Gregory, J. E. Spirlock and P. K. Pomeroy as set forth in Local Chairman Dorothy M. Sanford's letters of March 11, June 1, July 11, September 9 and November 2, 1977 identified as Employes' Exhibits A, I, J, K and L attached hereto.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Carrier installed a sew teletype machine (M-40) in its
 Chief Dispatcher's office, TOPS Room, at Roseville,
 California, on February 16, 1977. Prior to the installation, Dispatcher
 Clerk-Stenos, holding seniority rights on Sacramento District Roster No. 1,
 took message dictation from Assistant Chief Dispatchers, typed the message
 on telegram forms, and delivered them to Printer Machine Operators (Roster
 No. 2), who retyped them for transmission to the various listed stations.
 Subsequent to the installation of the M-40, the Dispatcher Clerk-Stenos
 (Roster No. 1) used their dictation notes to teletype the messages.
 That is, the function previously performed by the PMO Operators was
 eliminated.

 The Organization claims that Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when it removed work from Sacramento District Roster No. 2 and placed it on Sacramento District Roster No. 1. Claimants are the members of Roster No. 2.

 Article III, Section 2(a) of the Agreement of September 16, 1971 is the primary provision relied upon by the Organization. It sta,test


        When a carrier party hereto desires to transfer positions and/or work between seniority rosters, districts and/or regions on its own lines, or when a carrier party hereto desires to transfer positions and/or work to another carrier party hereto, 90 days' advance notice will be given appropriate General Chairman or General Chairmen .

        ...... (emphasis added)


The evidence indicates that with the M-40 machine, the Dispatcher Clerk-Stenos, instead of typing the message on a telegram form with a conventional typewriter, typed the message directly into the M-40 machine with its visual display. This operation did not constitute any additional work for the Dispatcher Clerk-Stenos. The actual transmission was then governed automatically by the computerized message switching system. The machine automatically transmitted the typed-in message.

 The result of this is that the Chief Dispatcher's Office is now able to send out its own message via the computer. There is no longer a need to send for the services of the Telegrapk Office. In short, the process was expedited by eliminating the middleman operation, without causing any additional work for the Dispatcher Clerk-Stenos.

 This Board has previously ruled that this type of installation does not constitute a transfer.of work.. See for__exampleAwards 3051.-2449, 11494. We find those rulings equally applicable here.

 Therefore, since the installation of the M-40 system constituted an elimination of the intermediate step performed by Claimants, and not a transference of work, Article III, Section 2(a) is not applicable. Citation of other Rules by the Organization, e.g., Rules 30, 31, 32, 33 are not appropriate to the factual situation here.

 We will deny the Claim in its entirety without addressing the other contentions raised.

        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;

                      Award Number 22832 Page 3

                      Docket Number CL-22727


That the Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee 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 not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:/
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of April 1980.