"This entire proposition now before your Honorable Board is a move on the part of our employes to disguise a request for increase in rates of pay on a rule violation.

"There is no rule violation, as the Board can readily see, from the facts heretofore stated in our presentation; the rates we are paying for clerical workers in the accounting division of the District Accountant's Office at Kansas City were established by mutual agreement with the Employes in 1932. The work assigned to the desk was well known to the Employes' representatives at that time, and there has been no change whatsoever in the assignment of work since the positions were established. Rule 66 cited by the Employes to support their claim in the presentation of this case to the Carrier in letter dated August 31, 1939, to General Superintendent Davis reads in part:

None of the claimants in this instance were assigned temporarily or permanently to higher rated positions, the work assigned to their desk was no different in July, 1939, than what it was when the positions were established in January, 1932, nor has there been any change made since July, 1939.

"During the month of July, 1939, the chief clerk in charge of the District Accounting Office, designated by memorandum form to certain clerks in the accounting force the specific numbered A. F. E. that it was desired he render assistance to the accountant in compiling. The actual work performed by the individual clerks in July, 1939, was no different prior or subsequent thereto, but during this particular month there were certain numbered A. F. E.s that preference was to be given by the accounting force owing to their having been delayed in prior month's accounts, due to the accounting force working on certain classified A. F. E. accounts, such as in the immediate preceding months they devoted their time to accounting work in connection with branch line studies, and this resulted in an accumulation of A. F. E. reports. During the month of July certain of these A. F. E.s were to be given preference to enable the district office to submit their reports within the time limits specified by the General Accounting Office, namely, A. F. E. reports to be rendered within a period of sixty days from dte of receipt.

"The method of handling A. F. E. statements in the District Accounting Office is absolutely no different than what prevailed when accounting offices were attached to each operating division some 18 in number; neither is it any different in any manner whatsoever than that now prevailing in the Little Rock District Accounting Office from whom no complaints have been made by the Clerks' Organization."

OPINION OF BOARD: Petitioner claims that in July, 1939, certain employes were temporarily assigned to a higher rated position and therefore were entitled to receive the higher rate of that position while occupying same. The carrier denies that these employes were assigned to a higher rated position, and makes an argument that they were assisting a higher rated employe due to a temporary increase in the volume of the work, and that they were not fulfilling the responsibilities of the position, and terefore were not entitled to the higher rate. Rule 66 of the agreement in evidence is cited by petitioner and the parties treat it as determinative of the question they have raised. Petitioner's contention depends on temporary assignments of claimant-employes having in fact been made. As to what is a "temporary assignment," Rule 66 says that the words "contemplate the fulfillment of the duties and responsibilities of the position while occupied, whether the regular occupant of the position is absent or whether the

temporary assignee does the work irrespective of the presence of the regular employe." It is also agreed in the rule that "assisting a higher rated employe, due to a temporary increase in the volume of the work, does not constitute a temporary assignment."

The employes named in (2) of claim held positions in carrier's Kansas City Accounting Office. The positions in this office were given a payroll classification for the purpose of identifying the major responsibilities that attached to each desk. A force of 17 men comprised the accounting division. The docket shows that the higher rated position mentioned in the claim was designated as A. F. E. Accounting work, and that the incumbent was charged with the responsibility of maintaining separately by divisions, in numerical order, A. F. E. Statements with Form 1537-B reports in readiness for handling by any of the accounting force; to know what projects under which charges should be completed, with preferred attention given to industrial A. F. E.s, F. E. R. A. projects, and those involving joint facility account; to maintain constant contact with the various statements, reporting direct to the Chief Accountant the progress of the work of handling A. F. E. Statements. A check developed that he expended about 459'0 of his working time on A. F. E. work, and the remainder on various other accounting work. There is also shown an ebb and flow of the work on A. F. E. Statements in the Kansas City Accounting office, dependent on the jobs being worked at any particular time on the railroad, the periods of the month when certain reports are compiled and due in the General Accounting office at St. Louis, and other contingencies.

In July, 1939, certain specific numbered A. F. E. reports were designated by memorandum to certain clerks, i. e., those named in (2) of claim, for handling by them to a conclusion. It appears from the record that at the time this was done there existed a temporary increase in the volume of the A. F. E. report work that made the carrier's action necessary if the work was to be done within the prescribed time. There is no showing that establishes that this temporary increase was purposeful or was something for which the carrier was at fault.

Applying the rule to the facts, it appears to the Board that the provisions of the rule compel saying that the showing made in this docket is insufficient to warrant a holding that temporary assignments were in fact made. Segments of the work of the higher rated position were distributed to various employes named in (2) of claim, but the co-ordinating and directional responsibilities inherent in the position, as described in the docket, were not theirs to fulfill. There is no showing that claimant-employes in -,my way assumed these responsibilities, nor from any showing in the docket can it be safely said that they would have been capable of fulfilling them without a preceding contact with the various factors as they had developed. The parties, in Rule 66, made fulfillment not only of the duties but of the responsibilities of the higher rated position one of the criteria to be used in ascertaining whether there has been a temporary assignment for the purpose of the rule. And as noted above, there was the temporary increase in the volume of the work, due to which fact the higher rated employe was in a situation where he required assistance in this work. The rule expressly eliminates from the category of assignments the assisting of a higher rated employe when it is due to temporary increase in the volume of the work. In other words, the parties recognized in Rule 66 that; there are two distinct things: (1) Assignments to higher rated position and (2) Assisting higher rated employes. In the rule the parties defined certain distinctions between these things. We cannot hold there was a temporary assignment when the record is as it is in this docket without being disregardful of those distinctions the parties themselves established. In the fact that the reports to be handled by claimants were designated in this instance by memorandum given them, the Board discovers nothing sufficient in itself to indicate an intent on part of carrier to depart from the agreements in Rule 66. With respect to (3) of the claim, there

appears to be no showing of facts on which a decision of the question of violation could be rendered. In the opinion of the Board, the claim must be denied.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing theron, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the carrier and the employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

That the facts in this docket are insufficient to establish violation of the rules cited.

AWARD