PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

 Transportation-Co:==icF-ticr-Y.=plcyees Union 1 Award No. 5
 Case No. 3
 and ) TCU No. 1,1,47
 EL Item No. 377
 Erie Lackawanna Pail way Comp any )

 STAT7_kZNT OF CLAI'ri:
Claim of the General Comaittee of the Transportation.-Cor,=.unication Employees Union on the _ie-Lackswanra railroad, that:

                          CLAIM 1.


        1. Carrier violated the parties' Agreement when on April 18, 1963, it declared the three trick positions at nIQ" Tower, Buffalo, New York abolished without in fact abolishing the work thereof, which work was unilaterally removed from the scope of the h;arch 1, 1957 Agreement.


        2. Carrier shall, because of the violation in (1) above, commencing April 18, 1963 and continuing thereafter until such violation is corrected, be required to com,ensate the following employees the amount specified, for each day the violation. exists.


            (a) All former regular assigned employees at "IQ" Tower listed in "Statement of Facts" for all wages lost and expenses incurred.


            (b) Other employ°_es displaced or affected as a result of the violation for all wages lost and expenses incurred, as provided in the Agreement.


        3. Carrier shall allow a check of its records to ascertain the names and amounts due employees.


                          CLAIM II.


                          Claim No. 1


        1. Carrier violated the parties' Agreement because on February 4, 1964, without negotiation or agreement, it abolished the second and third trick and relief operator-clerk positions at "B%" Office, Buffalo, New York, without abolishing the work thereof, part of which it consolidated with the positions in "F" Office (DL&'d) East Buffalo, flew York, enc the remainder it assi7ed to outsiders at "BV to perform.


        2. Carrier shall., because of violation in (1) above, be required to compensate the following employees aommcncirg February 4, 1964, and continuing thereafter until the violation is corrected, the amounts specified for each day the violation exists.

            (a) r:r. %. L. Llromss, -=. E. F. Petrella and i:r. R. E. Beale, occupants of the abolished first trick, third trick and relief operator-clerk positions, respectively, or their successors, for a days pay (eight hours) end expenses incurred each day suspended from their positions in addition to any wages otherwise paid to them.


      3. In addition, Carrier shrli compensate other displaced employces, hr.

      T. J. 2icPr, thug, Ix. R. :.. I:oore end rig. J. F. Driscoll for all wages

      lost end expenses incurred commencing February 4, 1964 and continuing

      thereafter until violation is corrected.


        4. Carrier shell allow a check of its records to ascertain the names and amounts duo employees.


                          Claim No. 2


        1. Carrier violated the parties' Agreement because on February 4, 1964, it abolished the first trick monitor position "BX" Office, Buffalo, New York, without abolishing the work thereof which it unilaterally assigned to the first trick operator-clerk "BX" Office to perform.


        2. Carrier shall, because of violation in (1) above, commencing February 4, 1964, and continuing thereafter until violation is corrected, be required to compensate Ice. J. D. Waterman, Jr., occupant of the abolished position, or his successor, for a days wages and expenses incurred for each day suspended from his position.


        3. In addition, Carrier shall compensate other displaced employees, big. W. H. Heather, hr. W. H. Whitehead and Mr. P. J. Gilboy for all wages lost and expenses incurred beginning February 4, 1964 and continuing thereafter so long as violation exists.


        4. Carrier shall allow a check of its records to ascertain the names and amounts due employees.


OPINION OF THE BOARD:
 The arguments contained in the instant Docket are both voluminous and repetitious. In large part, this is due to the inclusion of inordinately lengthly and controversial correspondence. F;evertheless, the gist of the two claims involved herein, concerns the abolishment of certain positions at "IQ" Tower and "BX" Office, Buffalo, New York. In brief, the Organization alleged that these positions were abolished in violation of the effective agreement between the parties, without negotiation or agreement. In turn, the Carrier countered these assertions by reference to a number of documents which, in its version, authorized such action.

                            -2- PLB 167

                            Award No. 5

Thus, in order to adjudicate the validity of these clzims, it is essential for us to initially review the scope =nd effect of these instruments. On August 11, 1960, the Carrier notified the Organization of certain impending steps it planned subsequently to implement. The pertinent portion of such is hereinafter quoted:

      "Supplementing end amending our letter of June 23, 1960, in rich we gave you preliminary information concerning the positions which would be affected by merger, as covered in I.C.C. Finance Docket 20707, wish to advise that we now estimate that the force rearrangements due to merger which will result in rearrangement or displacement of employees represented by the Order of Railroad Telographers will be as follows: (n) "IQ" Tower, Erie-Buffalo will be abolished


    (b) Three (3) operator-clerk 7-day positions, Erie nB%" Buffalo, will be merged with 3 Operate-Clerk (sic) positions at DL&W, East Buffalo yard. Thereafter, on September 11, 1961, en agreement was consummated between the parties, portions of which are herein noted:


      "This agreement is made in connection with the merger of the Delaware, Lackawanna mid Western Railroad Company end the %rio Rrilroad Compm y, hereinafter known as the Erie-Lackawanna FLrdlroad Company, as authorized by Crder of the Interstate Commission, as a condition of its approval of this transaction, imposed for the protection of the employees the socalled "New Orleans Union Pessenger Terminal Conditions," which are implemented by conditions specifically provided herein. It Is Hereby Agreed:


                        Article III


1. Any change in employment by reason of this merger contemplated by
 the carrier subsequent to the effective date of this agreement shall
 be subject to the procedures set forth in Sections 4 and 5 of the
 agreement of 'tiay, 1936, Washington, D.C. (hereinafter referred to as
 the "Washington Anreement").
 2. The carrier's letter notice of August 11, 1960, copy attached, meets
 these requirements as to the rearrangement of forces by reason of this
 merger estimated at this time in the specific cases outlined in said
 letter notice. Organization may handle individual situations in ac
 cordance with Erie Rule 3 (a) and (d) or D. L. & N. Rule 12 (b).
 The third document applicable herein, involves Section 4 and 5-of the Wash
 ington Agreement. Basically, Section 4 provides for written notice of any is oposed

                            -3- PLB 167

                            Award No. 5

changes and Section 5 requires an agreement in the event employees are displaced or forces are rearranged.
 Hence, the question presented in these claims is whether or not the letter of August 11, 1960 and the Agreement of September 11, 1961, conformed to the requirements of Section 4 and 5 of the Washington Agreement.
 In claim No. 1 herein, the Organization complained of the Carriers act in abolishing the three trick positions at "IQ" Tower. Thus, the focus of our analysis requires that we ascertain whether the Carrier complied with the preliminaries set forth in the hashington Agreement. Section 4, thereof, states that a written notice of the contemplated changes shall be mailed to the representatives as well as providing for other types of notices. In our view, the August 11, 1960 notice properly informed the Organization of the proposed abolishment of the "IQ" Tower.
 Was there a compliance with Section 5 of the Washington Agreement? Section 2, Article III of the September 11, 1961 Agreement states that it "meets these requirements as to the rearrangement of forces by reason of this morgor."
 In the sere vein, it is our conclusion that the requirements of the Washington Agreement have boon similarly applied to claim No. 2, dirceted at the abolishment of positions at "B%" Office
 However, the Organization further argues that the Carrier did negotiate subsequent agreements with reference to six of the twelve contemplated changes listed in its August 11, 1960 notice. This, the Carrier readily admits, though the basis for such agreements was not the reason advanced by the Organization, namely, conformity with Section 5 of the Washington Agreement. Each of the six agreements entered into with the Organization relevant to the various locations listed in the August 11, 1960 notice, was executed pursuant to the last sentence of Section 2, Article III of the September 11, 1961 agreement. This section provided for handling of individual situations pursuant to Erie Rule 3 (c) and (d) or D.L. & W. Rule 12 (b). In the instant dispute, the Organization, admittedly, had

 not requested:'such disposition. PLB 167

                            -!_- Award No. 5

In summary, we belicvo that after a painstaking review of the contentions advanced by both parties, the Carrier has conformed to the conditions imposed by the I.C.C. end the WEshington Agreement. However, it is also our view that the parties now should approach this problem with greater flexibility and demonstrate a concerted degree of reasonableness in their positions. While we have concluded that the effective agreement between the parties was not violated, we would strongly urge the parti.:s to attempt a reconciliation of their remaining differences, if any, and to take whatever corrective measures appear feasible, by invoking the latter pert of Section 2, Article III of the September 11, 1961 agreement, to wit, brio Rule 3 (c) and (d) or D.L. & W. Rule 12 (b).

 FINDINGS:
 Upon the entire record and all the evidence, after hearing, this Board finds that the captioned parties herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended; that this Board is duly constituted by agreement; that the parties hove had duo notice of these proceedings; and that this Board has jurisdiction over the pr.rties and the dispute involved heroin.

      That the Agreement was not violated.

                    Award

                    Claims denied per opinion.

                    Public Law Board No. 167


                    /sAurray k. Rohman

                    Murray ii. Rohmrn, Chairman

                    Neutral hember


/s /H, D. Smith /s/C, H. Zi=nersan
 H. D. Smith, Employee Member C. H. Zismerrmn, Carrier 1dember

 Dated: Cleveland, Ohio
 September 18, 1968

                            _5_ PLB 167

                            Award No. 5