SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 553 THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY (PACIFIC LINES)

ROY R. RAY, Referee

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

Award No. 11
Docket No. 11
Case No. 1'1
ORT FILE: 3134

"Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the Southern Pacific (Pacific Lines), that:

CLAIM. NO. 1

The Carrier violates the parties' Agreement when it purportedly abolished the agency positions at the stations and on the dates set forth below, while the work of the positions remained, by transferring the work of the nominally abolished position to Brawley, California, and/or Colton, California, where it is now being performed by employes not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement.

Agency

Work removed to Date









CLAIM N0. 2


' :513A 553





3. The Carrier shall, because.of the violation set forth
above, commencing December ly 1959, compensate each
emprioye adversely affected by reason of the Carrier's
violative act for any loss of wages plus actual
expenses."
OPINION OF THE BOARD:
The claims in this ease involve four stations or agencies on Carrier's Los Angeles Division which were closed between_Apri1 15 and December ly 1959. In each instance Carrier determined that the need for the Agency had ceased to exist, gave notice to the Employes as required by Rule 21(d) of the Agreement and received authority from the Public Utility Commission of California to close the Agency. The Agencies (Calipatria9 Guastiy Riverside and Coachella, California) were reclassified as non-agency stations and the remaining work was moved.to other agencies where it was assigned to Agent-Telegraphers, Telegrapher-Clerks and/or Clerical Employes, and to conductors depending upon the character of the work. Prior to the closing some clerical work from two of the stations had been centralized at larger stations. Some time after the transfers work originally moved from two of the stations was regionalized at central stations. ·The claim for Coachella is a duplicate of one in'Case No. 3.
.The .Organization made the same contentions and arguments in this case as it made in Case No. 5. We are convinced that there is nothing in these claims to distinguish them from those in Case 5 or to warrant a different result. Therefore, for the reasons


                                            A ~/


expressed in Award No. 5 we hold that Carrier's action in closing the stations and transferring the remaining work to other stations did not contravene the Agreement.
        FINDING

        That Carrier did not violate the Agreement.

        AWARD

        The claims are denied.


              SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 553


                    vCc~

                    Roy R. Ray, Chairman


D. A. Bobo, Employe Member L. . Sloan, arrier Member

San Franciscoy California November 99 1964