handled, etc. at their station. To this doctrine this Carrier is not agreeable to voluntarily subscribe, neither does it feel that your Honorable Board will impose such a condition upon it by sustaining the Clerks' Organization's claim in this case.

The Clerks' Organization further contend in this case that it is improper for an employe, whose working conditions are subject to an agreement between the Carrier and the Organization, to do a given piece of work incidental to his functioning as an employe of his class. A trucker is employed primarily to truck freight from car to warehouse, warehouse to loading platform and vice versa. Before he can get into an inbound car the seals must be broken, removed and door opened. It would be just as logical to contend that the trucker could not open the car door as to contend that he could not remove the seal on the hasp of the door fastener. The removal of this seal and reporting its number, as well' as the number of the car from which it was removed, is not clerical work in the Carrier's opinion. If it be decided otherwise by your Honorable Board, then the Carrier's position is that there is no rule of the agreement with the Clerks' Organization that gives to the Clerks a monopoly of performing all clerical work entailed in the many operations required of employes of a railroad.

Paragraph 2 of the Employes' statement of claim is that a monetary allowance be made to some unknown clerical employe. There has never been any claim from any individual clerk or other employe of the railroad presented to the Management for any alleged monetary loss sustained by reason of conditions existing at the Wynne station that formed the basis of the Employes' case. There is no rule in our agreement with the Employes that would permit of the organization filing a claim for unknown employes as they have in this instance. Even though all other contentions of the Employes in this claim presented to your Honorable Board by the Organization were sustained, then the Carrier feels that that part of the statement of claim as set forth in paragraph 2 of the statement of claim accompanying Secretary Johnson's letter of June 3, 1942 should be denied by the Board, as there has been no specific claim presented to the Carrier nor has there been any presented to the Board.

There are many contentions advanced by the Employes in this case similar, if not identical, to those advanced by them in a case identified as the Board's Docket No. CL-2016. The Carrier requests that its submission of June 5, 1942 in Docket No. 2016 be considered where applicable in the adjudication of this particular dispute.

OPINION OF BOARD: The facts in this case are not in dispute, and will not be repeated. The principle involved in this claim is similar to Docket CL-2016, covering a dispute between the same parties and involving the same position of Agent. The Carrier assigned such clerical work as making records of seals and car numbers in a seal record book to the Agent and the Cashier at Wynne, Arkansas. The petitioners admit it is proper for the Cashier to perform this work, but contend that the Agent cannot rightfully do so.

This claim is controlled by the same principle as the Board has just determined and decided in Award No. 2071, Docket No. CL-2016. The Board holds that the Carrier violated the current agreement in permitting the Agent to perform the work in question.

But as most, if not practically all, of this work was performed by the Cashier, a position under the agreement, the Board feels that no monetary award should be made in this claim. The Agent made not more than seventyfive entrees in this record book in three months. Moreover, this claim could have been incorporated in the claim of Docket No. CIr2016.

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:

AWARD