(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline sad Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE- (

STATEMENT 0f CIA324: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood

(1) Carrier violated the Clerk-Telegrapher Agreement whens following the date of Moray, August 29, 1977, it instructed and required Mr. D. B. Honham, incumbent of Traveling Agent position 28000302,9 headquartered at Willaxvl, Ohio, to take-over the duties and responsibilities of concurrently abolished Control Agent position 28000301 at Willard, Ohio, without receiving the proper compensation therefor, and

 (2) Because of such impropriety, Carrier shall be required to compensate CIEimant D. B. Bonham, incumbent of Traveling Agent position 28000302, Willard., Ohio, and his successors, a total of one-dollar thirteen cents ($1.13) per day, representing the higher-rate between abolished Control Agent position 28000301, ($64.71 per day) and surviving Traveling Aged position 28000302, ($63·58 per day) Plus subsequent general wage increases, commencing August 29, 1977, sad continuing tech and all subsequent work-dates,

 OPINION OF BOARD: In September, 1975, (terrier established at Willard,, Ohio,
 two (2) Agency positions - a Mobile Agent and s Control Agent.
 In accordance with the provisions of the controlling Agreement, the rates of pay
 of these two Agent positions were established so that the Control Agent received
 $1.00 per day maze than the Mobile Agent. Through subsequent wage increases the
 differential became X1.13.

 Claimant was the incumbent of the Mobile Agent position when on August 30, 1977, the position of Control Agent was abolished. Petitioner alleges that thereafter the incumbent of the Mobile Agent position was required to absorb the duties of the Control Agent position and, therefore, is entitled to the higher rate of pay which the Control Agent received. Petitioner argues that Rules No. 16, 17 and 20, as well as Appendix I of the Controlling Agreement support their contentione. The Carrier Control Agent as well as the Mobile Agent and that there is no justification for any higher rate to the Mobile Agent because the differential which existed was by Agreement for the Control Agent sad. did mat create a "higher rated" xark situation.


Rules No. 16o 17 and 20 read as follows:

Preservation of Rates
"(a) F5nployees temporarily assigned to higher rated positions, shall receive the higher rates for your (4) hours' work or less and if held on such positions in excess of four (4) hours, a minim= of eight (8) hours at the higher rate. bnployeea temporarily assigned to lover rated positions shall not have their rates reduced. (b) A 'temporary assignment' contemplates fulfillment of the duties sad responsibilities of the position during the time occupied whether the regular occupant of the position is absent or whether the temporary assignee does the work irrespective of t presence of the regular employee. Assisting a higher rated employee due to a temporary increase in the volume of work does not constitute a temporary ass


Change in Duties and New Positions
"When new positions are created duties of existing positions materially changed or duties of existing positions changed tram one class to another compe will be fixed in conformity with the same class and character of positions as are specified in the wage scale for the portion of the division on which located and the rules x111 apply to employees filling such positions; provided., the entering of employees in the po in the service or changing their classification or work shall not operate to establish a less favorable rate of pay or condition of employment than is herein established. New rates of pay to be effective from date firat,taken up by the representative of the employees.
 (It is understood that when increases are granted under the terms of this paragraph to certain positions on account of increased duties, such increases will be eLiminsted when the increased duties for which the increase was granted are discontinued.)"

Rates
"Established positions shall not be discontinued and new cases created covering relatively the same class of work which will result in reducing rates of pay or evading the application of these rules."


Appendix I of the June 4, 1973 Agreement is a Memorandum of Agreement which provides a procedure by which --
        "Carrier may establish Mobile Agent and/or Control Agent positions for the purpose of handling agency work at more than one station on a seniority district in accordance with the Rules Agreement betveen the signatory hereto sad, in addition, it is agreed:


                      ~. ~t * ~t


        The rate of pay of the newly-established Mobile Agent position will be the highest basic rate of any of the involved abolished positions plus $1.00 per da position of Control Agent is also established, the rate of pay of such position will be $1.00 per day is excess of the rate of pay of the Mobile Agent position.


                      ~t * * *"


Rule 16 does not apply here because by its very language it refers to a situation where employee are "temporarily assigned to higher retell positions". Such is not this sae.

 As fair Rules No. 17 and 20, we are unable to find is the record any probative evidence to support the allegation that the duties of the Mobile Agent ware "materially changed" or that any position was "discontinued and now ones created, covering relatively the same class of work".

 Appendix I of the Controlling Agreement is not applicable to the claim situation here involved.

 Based on the total record. before us, we are unable to conclude that the Carrier has required Claimant to perform any service which would entitle him to the monetary differential claimed.

        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;


Teat the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Flrtployes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 19341

 That this Division of the Adjustment Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.

                    Award Nmber 233 Page 4

                    Docket Nimmber CL-23053

                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAI<.RQAD Al1TtBTKEP'1' HOARD

                          By order of Third Division


ATTEST: 14 /0 coo
        Mcutive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois., this 15th day of September 1987..