(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employer
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company

(1) Carrier violated and continues to violate Rule 1, Rule 21, and other related rules of the telegraphers agreement when it allows employer other than telegraphers or dispatchers to handle train orders.

 (2) Carrier shall now be required to compensate the senior available employe eight (8) hours at the appropriate rate of pay beginning March 31, 1980 and continuing until the violation is corrected.

 OPINION OF BOARD:_ The Organization contends that Carrier violated Rules 1 and
 21 of the Telegrapher's Agreement when it permitted
 employees other than telegraphers or dispatchers to handle train orders.
 Specifically, the Organization argues that C,rrier violated Paragraph C of Rule
 21 which precludes the use of train and engine service employer from transmitting
 or receiving train orders, clearances, written messages or blocking or reporting
 trains by telephone or telegraph except in emergencies. It asserts that
 Carrier's previous abolishment of the two telegraphers' positions at Colorado
 Springs on March 3, 1980 was a veiled attempt to avoid the purposes of the
 Telegrapher's Collective Bargaining Agreement by transferring their work to other
 employer.

 Carrier argues that it did not violate the Agreement since no employe covered by the Telegrapher's Agreement was employed at Colorado Springs and thus it was permissible for train crew personnel to handle train orders. It avers that there wane no telegraphers employed at any of the locations where the tramp switcher traveled and asserts that the issuance of train orders to employer other than telegraphers at locations where telegraphers are not employed is consistently observed on a system wide basis.

 In our review of this case, we concur with Carrier's position. Firstly, consistent with our decisional law, Carrier is not estopped from abolishing a position or rearranging work assignments unless restricted by the Controlling Agreement. The current labor agreement does not preclude or qualify Carrier's right to abolish positions and the record is bereft of any evidence that the two telegrapher positions at Colorado Springs were abolished so as to transfer their work to other employer. Secondly, Rule 21 which is relied upon by both sides does not prevent Carrier from using non-agreement covered employer at locations where telegraphers are not employed. Carrier has asserted that the practice has been observed on a system wide basis, which the Organization contends is correct only to the extent that it was observed at locations where
 Award Number 24069
 Docket Number CIr24230

 Page 2

 telegraphers were never employed; but the latter assertion was never proven. Whether telegraphers were previously assigned to the location does not vary the intended purpose of the practice observed. If this were not so, Carrier would be barred from reducing telegrapher forces when warranted by changed economic conditions. In the instant case, when the two telegraphers' positions were abolished at Colorado Springs, Paragraph (A) of Rule 21 was thereafter applicable at that location. It is at locations where telegraphers are not present that non-agreement covered employee are,pexmitted to handle train orders. Accordingly, given the facts of record, we are constrained to follow the basic principle enunciated in Third Division Award No. 19927, wherein we held in pertinent part that:

 "If train orders are handled at points where no covered employees are employed, under Article 20 they may be handled by other employees."

 We will deny the claim.

That the parties waived oral hearing;

 That the Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee within the meaningkof the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has juriJs..~ ^ ~ the dispute involved herein; and

 That the Agreement was not violated.

 Claim denied.

 Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 >

 Ile I

 c\o Offce

 3~,,

 .,

 .

 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJU512'ENT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 $y ~ V s
 Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, tiffs 14th day of December 19.R^c.