PARTIES) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 TO ) Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employee
 DISPUTE:) and
 Missouri Pacific Railroad - Southern, Northern and
 Central Districts
 QUESTIONS (1) Did those certain changes which Carrier made at Pine
 AT ISSUE: Bluff, Arkansas, effective April 15, 1965, constitute
 technological, operational and/or organizational changes
 under the provisions of Article III of the February 7,
 1965 Agreement?
 (2) Did the Carrier violate the provisions of the February
 7, 1965 Agreement, particularly Articles III and VIII thereof,
 when in instituting those certain changes at Pine Bluff,
 Arkansas, it transferred the station clerical work to employee
 of another craft, represented by another Labor organization?
 (3) Shall the Carrier be required to return the station
 clerical work to employee within the scope of the Clerks
 Agreement?
 (4) Shall the Carrier be required to compensate each and
 every employs involved in or affected by the changes instituted
 at Pine Bluff, Arkansas, effective April 15, 1965, the wage
 losses they have suffered on and after April 14, 1965, and
 accord each and every such employs the full allowances and
 benefits prescribed in the February 7, 1965 Agreement?

 OPINION Effective with the completion of tour of duty on April 14,
 OF HOARDS 1965s Carrier abolished the clerical positions of Cashier
 and Rate Clerk at Fine Bluff, Arkansas. The incumbents of
 the abolished positions thereupon exercised displacement rights on other
 clerical positions at the station. The subject aboliahmenta resulted from
 the reassignment of clerical work at Pine Bluff, whereby some of the work
 previously performed by incumbents of the abolished positions was assigned
 to station telegraphers and the rest of this work was assigned to the
 remaining station clerical force.
                                    Case x0.


                    _ p -


The iastal.lxtion of CTC between Little Rock and McOehee, Arkansas was completed immediately prior to the subject position aboliahmente. This installation caused a substantial reduction in the number of train orders handled by telegraphers at Pine Bluff, but there continued to be a need for round-the-clock telegrapher service at the station. The Carrier assigned the above-noted additional work of a clerical nature to telegraphers in order to .f1.71 out their tour of duty.

 The installation of CTC was a technological change which the Carrier was entitled to make. The initial impact of this change was upon telegrapher work but, as we have Been, the secondary result was the reassignment of certain clerical work and the abolishment of two clerical positions.
There is sufficient evidence of record to establish that the telegrapher force at Pine Bluff has traditionally performed some clerical work. Thus the station's clerical work has not been reserved, by practise to employees covered by the Clerks' Agreement.

            The disputed assignment of additional clerical work to the

station telegrapher farce did not constitute a crossing o1 craft lines,
 wince under the confronting circumstances the subject work was not reserved
 to either craft. Moreover, the disputed Carrier action would lave bees
 permissible without conference sad agreement with Organization represeata
 tivea prior to Fetuuary 7a 1965. Thus no implementing agreement was re- ._/i
 quired,

 It is concluded that submitted Question (1) mmst be answered in the affirmative, and auhoittad Questions (2) and (3) in the negative. .Ils to submitted Question (!t), the answer is that the affected employees are entitled to such protective benefits as are provided for they by the terms of the February q, 1965 Mediation Agreement.
                Ai1RD


            The Carrier introduced a technological change at Pins Bluff,

February in Apes ~~65but it did not violate Articles III sad VIII of the
 y , by assigning to station telegraphers, to fill
 out their tour of duty, certain additional clerical. work previously per
 formed by the station clerical force. The answer to submitted Question (1)
 is Tomb The answer to submitted Questions (2) and (3) is No. The answer
 to submitted Question (lt) is as stated in above Opinion of Board.

                REFEREES:


          ~7

                      ~A~/


            ~ / /

          '~f~ l~Cfcl ~~(t y

          . .10 _

                          ,1


                1~

                      r.


Washington, D. C. - December 19, 1967