PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 TO ) Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees
 DISPUTE ) and
 Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company
 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: (1)Did the February 7, 1965 Agreement supersede and
 abrogate the provisions of the Memorandum of Agree
 ment dated April 19, 1960 known as the 'One-man
 Station Agreement'?
 (2) Did those certain changes made by the Carrier at
 Ortonville, Minnesota effective on March 15, 1966
 constitute technological, operational and/or
 organizational changes under the provisions of
 Article III of the February 7, 1965 Agreement?
 (3) Did the Carrier violate Article III and VI of the
 February 7, 1965 Agreement when in instituting
 certain changes' at Ortonville, Minnesota it trans
 ferred the station clerical work to an employee of
 another craft, represented by another labor
 organization?
 (4) Shall the Carrier be required to return the station
 clerical work .at Ortonville, Minnesota to employees
 within the scope and application of the Clerks'
 Agreement?
 (5) Shall the Carrier be required to compensate employee
 D. A. Witte, for wage losses suffered on and after
 March 15, 1966 and afford him full allowance and
 benefits of the February 7, 1965 Agreement because
 of the changes instituted at Ortonville, Minnesota?

 OPINION
 OF BOARD: Effective March 15, 1966, Clerk Position No. 6716, at
 Ortonville, Minnesota, was abolished and the work was
 transferred to the Agent, an employee of another craft.
 The Carrier declined the Organization's claim on the ground
 that its action was supported by the "One Man Station Agreement", which,
 in effect, was not abolished by Article VI, Section 1, of the February 7,
 1965 National Agreement. It is the Carrier's-contention that the "One
 Man Station Agreement" of April 19, 1960, does not constitute a "job
 protection or employment Security agreement" of the type referred to in


Section 1 of Article VI. It, further, insists that such "One Man Station Agreement" continues in effect and will continue until cancelled. The organization, on the other hand, argues that the "One I-Lan Station Agreement" is a job protection and employment security agreement which pursuant to Article VI, Section 1, could have been preserved by notifying the Carrier within sixty days of the execution of the National Agreement. However, such preservation notice was never served on the Carrier and, - therefore, it was abrogated and superseded by the National Agreement.

 The Carrier's basis for its contention that the National Agreement did not supersede the local agreement rests on two grounds. Pursuant to Article VI, Section 1, the first condition contemplates a job protection or employment security agreement which by its terms is of general system-wide and continuing application. In this regard, the local agreement is not a system-wide agreement, inasmuch as it has applicability only on Carrier's Lines East. The second condition stated therein, provides that if it does not have general system-wide application, is one which by its terms would apply in the future. Apropos this contention, the Carrier disputes the fact that the local agreement can be construed as applicable in the future since it is subject to a thirty days written cancellation notice.

 We are not entirely convinced whether the latter argument was premised as a jest or predicated on naivete. If the Carrier's defense is to be taken seriously, then only eagreements which are executed in perpetuity would conform to this requirement. Under the Carrier's interpretation, any future agreement, if it contained a cancellation clause, would not-conform to the requirement spelled out in Article VI, Section 1. We do not believe it necessary to belabor this point any further.

 Is a "One Man Station Agreement" a job protection or employment security agreement? Without.a scintilla of doubt: Does the instant "One Man Station Agreement" apply in the future, despite the proviso for a thirty day cancellation clause? Of course: Did the organization representative preserve the local agreement by notifying the Carrier within sixty days? Unquestionably not: Hence, did the February 7, 1965 National Agreement supersede the "One Man Station Agreement"? The answer is a simple yes. In this regard, we would also incorporate by reference our analysis in Award No. 21.

                          Award


Answer to questions (1) , (2) , (3) , (4) and (5) is in the affirmative.
                    ::GCll~t

                      Murr y M. Rohman

                      N tra1 Member


Dated: Washington, D.C.
 August 7, 1969