PARTIES TO DISPITrE: Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
 Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company

1. Carrier violated and continues to violate the Agreement between the parties when it unilaterally abolished, at end of assignment June 30, 1978, the Rate Analyst position in the District Sales Office, Cincinnati, Ohio and transferred assigned duties, being performed by employees under the Agreement, to employees not so covered on another railroad (SCL Division of the Family Lines) at Jacksonville, Florida.









OPINION OF BOARD: Effective June 30, 1978, the Carrier abolished a'position
 of Rate Analyst at its Cincinnati Division; the work per
 formed by the incumbent o! this former position vas described as quoting rates
 to cuss checking routes, as vell as other related duties. According to
 the Organisations such duties Were assigned to employee of another railroad
 (SCL) at another location (Jacksonville, Florida); customers Were purportedly
 afforded a toil-free line by vhich such information could be obtained.
such action to the Carrier Ts Director of Labor Relations, advising that the
 appropriate district official would be instructed to file claims in this
 regard. On J l 1~, the District (hairy piled a cla3z With the
 District Sales Manager setting forth the particulars as heretofore stated and
 establishing a blanket claim on behalf of the Claimant and all others affected
 by the action. By letter dated September 19, 1978 the Vice General Chairman's
 July 11 letter was responded to by the Carrier, denying that the Carrier's
                      Docket Number CL-23131 Page 2


actions were violative of the Agreement. Thereafter, continuing claims were filed by the Organisatirni and a claim was almo made that the Carrier's failure to respond to this claim within 60 days, according to Rule 45, made it ripe for implementation as stated. The Carrier denied such liability, contending instead that the Organization had raised the claim to the wrong official: per the Carrier, such claims should have been referred to the Assistant TrainmasterAgent. It also assert disputed had been assigned to the Chief Rate Clerk, located at DeCoursey, Kentucky and within the same Seniority District (30) as was the incumbent of the abolished position. The Carrier contends it is entitled to adjust its work forces, including the elimination of jobs and that neither the Claimant nar any other amplmye suffered a loss of compensation by such action, except by their own prerogative to opt for a lower-rated job than was available.

 We need not look past the opposing questions of the filing of and response to the claim to dispose of it. The threshhold question is whether or not the claim was timely and properly filed by the Organization. Specifically, did the Organization raise the matter to the proper official. We conclude the record supports the Organization in this regard. The Organization sets forth a showing that this matter was a subject of correspondence between the parties well in advance of the disputed job abolishment and that the District Sales Manager was the proper official to receive such a claim. It is noted by this Board that a showing to the contrary by the Carrier -- i.e. that the "designated officer" to receive such claim was the Assistant Trainmaeter-Agent -- was not forthcoming until rebuttal argument was presented by the Carrier to this Board. At that time, it presented (as Exhibit "AA") a "Seniority Roster" for District 30 dated February 7, 1978 which was signed by "g. E. Adams," who was identified as Assistant Trainmsster-Agent at DeCoursey Yard with the designation of "Officer in Charge".

 In sum, we consider the provision of Article 45 of the Agreement to control here. As to the remedy requested we are not persuaded that Claim 2 (a) is necessarily a required condition of resolution, but direct that 2(b) and 2(c) be addressed by the parties to determine the adverse impact, it any, upon the Claimant(s) by such actions. We shall comment on the merits of this case only to the extent that the work performed by Claimant Tepper at the time of dispute in this case may not properly be assigned outside the scope of the relationship between the parties as set out in the terms of the Agreement. The parties shall resolve all outstanding matters within 90 days of receipt of this Award.

        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;.
                      Award Number 231194

                      Docket Number CL-23131 Page 3


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 in accordance with the Opinion.


                          NATIONAL RAIIROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of January 1982.

 :h r~ .
 .y

        -

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUsT7.ENI BOARD

 THIRD DIVISION
INTERPRETATION N0. 1 tp AWARD N0. 23494

 DOCKET N0. CL-23131

 Serial No. 313
NAME OF ORGANIZATION: Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks.
 Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes

 NAM OF CARRIER: Louisville and "Nashville Railroad Company

 A question has been raised as to the interpretation of Award No. 23494 insofar as the status of the Rate Analyst position ahieh the Carrier abol,iy and which forms the gravamen of this $ispute ,, is concerned, It vas not the intent of this Board that Award 231194 should have been construed to allow or require re-establishment of such position, or that the work performed by such position was to be returned to the Cincinnati Division. MIS Board,, ybue finding it appropriate to return the matter to the property and the parties for them to address questions of relief, if any, that might issue to affected employes* specified that such work continued to be reserved to employee within the contractual relationship. While the Carrier is entitled to effect management decisions as to how such work is to be performed, the affected employes are entitled to all benefits in effect where Jobs are abolished and/or work is moved elsewhere; such provision may include Washington Job Protection, etc* and parties were and continue to be expected to apply any and all 4such relief.
 ven the aforecited interpretations, the parties are directed totfinalise this matter.

 Referee James F. Scearce who sat with the Division as a neutral member when Award No. 231.194 was adopted, also participated with the Division in making this interpretation.

 ATTEST:

 zt*p

 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADM-11-ENT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 ~ey J. Dever
 ~Fcative Secretary

 Dated at Chimgo,, nlimia this 3rd day of August 1983,