Reply: It has been common practice ever since our

relocation to the New Topeka GOB for Circuit

Supervisors to protect incoming CTC telephone calls

when the Traffic Controller is briefly unavailable.

While protecting these respective telephone lines,

Circuit Supervisors do not perform any duties

covered under the scope of the current clerical

agreement.

Claim: The Circuit Supervisors have been instructed to

begin familiarizing themselves with the Traffic

Controller's duties.

Reply: Circuit Supervisors, most of whom previously held

Traffic Controllers positions, have been charged

with the responsibility to supervise Traffic

Controllers since late 1987 and, therefore, have not

just begun to re-familiarize themselves with Traffic

Controller duties.

Claim: fhe handling and/or filling of PBX Operator

%arancies previously handled exclusivelv by the

Iratfic Controllers has now been assigned to the

Circuit Supervisors.

Reply: `When a short vacancy has occurred with our PBX

Operators at Topeka, we have historically require

that a supervisor be consulted and apprised of the

circumstances. It has remained the responsibilitN

of our supervision to authorize the call-in of extra

board relief for our Operator positions. This has

ne%er been the exclusive work of Traffic

Controllers.

Claim: Transmitting 7 AM morning reports to System.

Reply: The assembly and transmission 7 AM morning

reports were in no way changed at the time we

abolished Traffic Controller position a 4008. Our

Circuit Supervisor and Traffic Controllers continue

to prepare and transmit their respective reports.

Claim: Checking of Multiplex Channel Levels.

Reply: Historically, microwave multiplex channel levels

have been handled by IBEW personnel and have

never been a clerical function.

Claim: Notify Telephone Companies to repair Bad Order

leased circuits.

Reply: It has never been the exclusive work of Traffic

Controllers to notify telephone companies

regarding repair or restoral of leased

communication circuits.

Claim: IBEW Technicians updating CSOS trouble reports.

Reply: Since April 1987 the CSOS program enhanced to

allow field updates to be imput by all

Communications Department employees. Traffic

Controllers are still being utilized to assist field

personnel to input CSOS updates.

Claim: IBEW employees using Tie-up Run instead of Traffic

Controllers imputing.

Reply: The 'TIE-UP' program was implemented from the

onset for all Communications Department employees

to utilize."

While the Organization has attempted to refute each of Carrier's replies to the specific allegations made in claim No. 1, the evidence at best, shows that covered employees has, at some time in the past, performed work which is now being performed by others. It is evident from the record that there may have been a gradual transfer of work from covered to exempt employees since early 1987. The Claim before this Board, however, is that the abolishment of the position on April 25, 1988, corresponded to the transfer of work. The Board does not find this to be the case. If work had been transfered for as much as a year prior to the abolishment, it is beyond the scopoe of this Claim, and therefore, beyond the jurisdiction of this Board to provide a remedy. Claim No. 1 must, therefore, be denied.

In Claim No. 2, the organization alleges that Carrier abolished four Communications Traffic Controller positions on November 15, 1988, without properly issuing a notice and/or bulletin in accordance witih Rule 16. The Organization asserts further, that Carrier then placed the incumbents of the abolished positions in exempt positions. Finally, the Organization claims the work which had been performed by these employees was then transferred to Circuit Supervisors, who are exempt from its Agreement.

Carrier first denies that it abolished the jobs without proper notice. Carrier claims the positions had already been vacated, obviating the need to serve a five-day notice. Carrier further argues the claim was not filed on a timely basis. According to Carrier, Claimant Manley was removed from service on April 11, 1988, at which time his job was abolished. Carrier further states that the positions held by Claimants Cramer and Robertson were abolished on August 19, 1988. Thus, Carrier asserts that the organization's claim dated January 12, 1989, was not presented within 60 days as provided in Rule 47. On this point, we find that Carrier's assertions are contradicted by General Superintendent of Communications first letter of denial of the Claim wherein he acknowledges that the jobs were abolished on November 15, 1988.

Carrier has also argued that the Organization has filed this claim in behalf of improper Claimants, asserting the named Claimants were not the incumbents of the positions at the time they were abolished. In this regard, there is no evidence in this record from which the Board can make a determination as to the validity of Carrier's argument. We conclude, therefore, that the Claim has been properly filed.

Turning to the merits of Claim No. 2, we find that the organization's claim is based primarily upon its assertion that all of the covered Communications Trffic Controller positions have been replaced by exempt Circuit Supervisors. The record is devoid of evidence, however, showing what work is being performed by the circuit Supervisors that might be reserved to the Organization's craft under the Agreement. It is not sufficient merely to assume that work has been transferred out of the craft, particularly in view of Carrier's assertions that much of the work is no longer required, while other elements of the job have been assigned to other covered employees. The organization has the burden of proving what work has been transferred. Long and careful study of this record does not establish that that burden has been satisfied. Accordingly, Claim No. 2 must be denied.

AWARD