was applied in accordance with the Carrier's understanding of the opinion of the Board upon which the award was based. A joint check was made by a representative of the carrier and a representative of the organization and all employes affected were paid in accordance with the award. The mechanical foremen who had been performing the clerical work at Taylor were relieved of that work; a part of the work being transferred to an employe in the mechanical department at Palestine, and the remainder to a yard clerk at Taylor. Both of the employes are included in the scope of the agreement with the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks.

"The opinion of your Board in connection with Award No. 1125, referred to above, reads as follows:

'It has been repeatedly held by this Board that work embraced within the scope of an agreement may not properly be removed from such agreement and assigned to employes not subject to its terms. In the instant proceeding there is much conflict of evidence as to the extent of the clerical work performed by the foremen upon abolition of the clerk's position on August 19, 1932 or September 20 1932, in connection with which complaint was filed, as well as to the amount of clerical work performed by the foremen after the complaint was renewed on February 21, 1939; but there is ample basis for the conclusion that, entirely apart from such routine clerical work as these foremen handle as a natural incident to their regular duties, a substantial amount of work previously performed by the clerk was transferred to them, and hence removed from the operation of the Agreement, as a result of the abolition of the clerk's position. Under the circumstances of this proceeding, therefore, there was an improper removal of clerical work from the scope of the Agreement, and the employes adversely affected by this removal are entitled to recover all monetary loss sustained. The recovery of reparation, however, cannot extend back beyond February 21, 1939, the date he present complaint was made, since all prior violations had been rendered moot through the closing of the office; and the request, furthermore, that the establishment of a clerical position be ordered must be denied, since the evidence as to the amount of clerical work involved is conflicting, and it is not the function of this Board to determine the character of the arrangement whereby the violation of the Agreement shall be removed. In other words, while the carrier is directed to make reparation for its past violation, as of February 21, 1939, it is free to adopt any arrangement, within the rules of the Agreement, which will remove that violation.'

"It is the contention of the Carrier that the clerical work formerly performed by the mechanical foremen at Taylor is now being performed by employes coming within the scope of the agreement between the carrier and the organization, under which circumstances, the agreement is not being violated and your Honorable Board is respectfully petitioned to so rule."

OPINION OF BOARD: As the Board views it, the sole question presented in this case is whether the Carrier may assign duties, appertaining to a position which has been abolished, to an employe who belongs to a seniority district other than that in which the position falls under the agreement. The position is in seniority district No. 22. The employe who is performing the remaining duties appertaining to it holds seniority rights in district No. 25.

The Carrier maintains that this proceeding is for the purpose of forcing it to reestablish the abolished position; and argues that the matter was disposed of in Award 1125 which involved a dispute growing out of substantially the same state of facts. In that case, however, the seniority issue was not raised or decided. The claim was mae in that case that the position should be restored. To that extent the claim was denied. But it was further decided that the remaining duties appertaining to the abolished posi-

tion could not be assigned to employes who were not within the scope of the agreement. In the Opinion- in that case it is said: "In other words, while the carrier is directed to make reparation for its past violation, as of February 21, 1939, it is free to adopt any arrangement, within the rules of the Agreement, which will remove that violation." (Emphasis added.) Pursuant to that Award reparation was made from the time specified through June 1940.

The Organization contends that the Carrier has not yet adopted an arrangement "within the rules of the agreement" which removes the violation. The Carrier contends that there is now substantial compliance with the agreement since only 37 minutes a day is required for the performance of the remaining duties attaching to the former position. From the standpoint of time and money involved the violation does seem inconsequential. The principle involved, however, is not. The dispute presents a challenge to the integrity of seniority rights as agreed upon by the parties. To condone a seemingly slight violation would tend to undermine the basic structure of seniority rights. This the Board has consistently refused to do. See Awards 752, 753, 973, 975, 1403, 1440.

The Carrier, having violated the agreement by assigning the remaining duties of the former position to an employe holding seniority rights in district No. 25, is required to make reparation to the employes affected for all monetary loss sustained subsequent to June 30, 1940.

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 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