as is shown by the analysis of the joint check there are no eight-hour shifts within a spread of nine hours in which there is as much as four hours work performed by the four positions involved at all the locations at which the work is performed; besides which, some of the work is simultaineously performed by two positions, amounting to from fifteen to fifty minutes per day; and some of this work is simultaneously performed at more than one location.

"The assignments of the chief dispatcher, dispatcher, yardmaster and assistant yardmaster run from 6:00 A. M. to 1:00 A. M.-a spread of nineteen hours. Starting at 6:00 A. M. on each of the week days and showing the clock time of last performance of work we have:

"Here we have a clearer exposition of what the petitioner would call a 'day,' that is, instead of the agreement rule for eight hours in a spread of nine, we shall call a 'day' in this case from 15'05" to 16'10".

"The petitioner's apparent interpretation of what constitutes a 'day' is merely convenient for the purpose of this claim. The carrier submits that a 'day,' as contemplated by the agreement is not a period of twenty-four hours; nor a calendar day. A 'day' is clearly defined in Rule 43, and may not be disregarded for convenience and attempted support of a claim in a particular situation.

"If the statement of claim is directed toward prohibiting the carrier from making a bona fide reassignment of clerical work when the time element limitation of the scope rule no longer exists, attention is directed to the fact that the contentions of the General Chairman as shown in Exhibit B is clearly based on the idea that the four hour limitation properly applies.

"In Exhibit B the contention is that there are more than four hours of clerical work performed each day, in this particular situation. The unsoundness of this contention is immediately apparent when the definition of a day, as clearly expressed in the agreement, is considered. Such an interpretation of a 'day' as the petitioner here applies, would not be considered for a moment if proposed in connection with he general rules of the agreement; it is invalid here.

"The Carrier respectfully requests that for the foregoing reasons the claim of the petitioner be denied.

OPINION OF BOARD: Prior to September 1930, there were employed in the terminal yard and agency at Wichita Falls, Texas, terminal, a chief yard clerk, with hours of service from 8:30 A. M. to 4:30 P. M., and a night interchange clerk, with hours from 3:00 P. M. to midnight, and that while the latter was shown as being on the staff of the agent's office, he and the day chief cleric in the yard office performed all of the clerical work there was to be performed in the latter office which included the clerical work here in dispute. Since about September 1930, a temporary and seasonal position of night interchange clerk has existed for short periods of time at said station and yard terminal. During which times the two clerical positions named performed all the clerical work here in dispute.

A dispute arose between the parties in August 1938, as to the right of the Carrier to discontinue the position of night interchange clerk and assign

the work thereof to employes not within the scope of the Agreement, and as a result, a joint check was made for the period March 25, to March, 31, 1939 inclusive, to determine by whom the work in question ~vas performed. Each day's check is shown on separate sheets and each is headed, "Statement showing yard clerical work performed in Wichita Falls, Texas, terminal by combination chief-trick dispatcher, second trick dispatcher, day yardmaster and assistant yardmaster . . .

It appears from the joint check referred to that the chief-trick dispatcher and the second trick dispatcher perform clerical work each week day varying in volume from 1 hour and 50 minutes to 2 hours and 40 minutes; and that day yardmaster and assistant yardmaster regularly perform clerical work varying in volume from 2 hours and 25 minutes to 3 hours and 5 minutes each week day, all of which amounts to more than 4 hours per week day. We do not understand that this joint check covers clerical work merely incident to the positions of dispatchers or yardmasters as the heading of each page of each day's check refers to "Yard clerical work."

The Carrier seems to contend that if clerical work diminishes to less than 4 hours per day, or to a point where there is less than that amount performed within a spread of 9 hours, it can parcel such work out to employes not under the Clerks' Agreement. We do not agree as to purely clerical work. See Awards 458, 751, and 754. It does not appear to be disputed that all this "Yard clerical work," which varies from 4 hours and 40 minutes to 5 hours and 45 minutes each week day was, prior to the discontinuance of the position of night interchange clerk in September 1930, performed by that position and the chief yard clerk, and since there is more than four hours per day of clerical work still o be performed, we do not understand why that arrangement should not have continued.

It is also argued by the Carrier that, because it has, since 1930, placed this work under the Agreement and removed it at will, it is justified in continuing to do so. It is well settled that continued violations of collective agreements do not revise or change them. It was held in Award 751 that work once placed under the agreement cannot arbitrarily be removed therefrom except as provided therein.

Also, Addendum No. 5 to the current rules Agreement bearing effective date of August 1, 1937, shows Position No. 5840, night interchange clerk, at Wichita Falls Freight, rate $5.55 per day. In that Addendum the Carrier recognized the position here in question, the classification, rate and location thereof, and that it would not abolish the position except as provided in Rule 78.

Carrier has cited a number of Awards, including No. 809. We think Award 809 supports the position of claimant, and that the others are not in point.

We hold that the Carrier has violated the current Agreement as contended.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon 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

AWARD