and Telegraphers to perform clerical work or to restrict in any way the right of the Carrier to permit or require such employes to perform clerical work under the circumstances surrounding the case under consideration.

In support of the position of the Carrier in that connection, attention is invited to the Carrier's original submission in the disputes covered by Docket No. CL-2394, Award No. 2437 and Docket No. CL-2396, Award No. 2438 of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, Third Division.

The alleged disputes covered by the aforementioned dockets were submitted to the Board by the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes and were subsequently withdrawn from the consideration of the Board by that organization before hearing had been held, and pursuant to Grand President George M. Harrison's letter of December 29, 1943, directed to Mr. H. A. Johnson, awards were rendered dismissing the cases covered by Dockets Nos. CL-2394 and CL-2396.

As shown by the Carrier's Statement of Facts, the position of Ticket Clerk-Baggageman at Peru was established as a six (6) day position and the incumbent thereof assigned to work from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. six (6) days per week, from Monday to Saturday, inclusive, effective March 25, 1933, and on and ater that date the incumbent of the position involved was not required to perform service on Sundays and holidays on account of the services of a clerk not being necessary or required on such days, and in that connection, attention is invited to Rule 8 (a) of the Schedule for Clerks. '

The contention of the Committee that the Carrier violated Rule 8 of the Schedule for Clerks by declining to assign the position of Ticket ClerkBaggageman to work seven (7) days per week, when that position was rebulletined on April 30, 1941, is wholly without asis under the rules of the aforementioned agreement.

The contention of the Committee that the Carrier violated the provisions of the so-called standard Sunday and Holiday Rule, effective December 26, 1943, by not requiring the incumbent of the position of Ticket Clerk-Baggageman to work on Sundays and legal holidays on and after that date is also without foundation.

The alleged claim set up in paragraph (e) of the Committee's ex parts Statement of Claim is not supported by the rules (including the so-called standard Sunday and Holiday Rule, which became effective on December 26, 1943) of the Schedule for Clerks.

The services of the position of Ticket Clerk-Baggageman at Peru are not required on Sundays and holidays and, therefore, it is obvious that the said position is not a position necessary to the continuous operation of the railroad and the use of the Telegraph Operators to sell tickets for Trains Nos. 1 and 4 on Sundays and holidays and handle the baggage involved in connection therewith is not a violation of the rules involved.

The so-called standard Sunday and Holiday Rule, which became effective on December 26, 1943, does not in any way restrict the right of the Carrier to create or maintain six (6) day positions and to assign the incumbents of such positions to work six (6) days per week, from Monday to Saturday, inclusive.

In view of that fact and the further fact that the position of Ticket ClerkBaggageman at Peru is a six (6) day position, from Monday to Saturday, inclusive, it is obvious that the said position does not fall within the purview of the so-called standard Sunday and Holiday Rule and, therefore, the contention of the Committee in that connection is wholly without basis.

The foregoing shows that the alleged claim set up in the Committee's ex parts Statement of Claim is not supported by the rules of the Schedule for Clerks, therefore, the contention of the Committee should be dismissed and the claim denied in its entirety.

OPINION OF BOARD: Prior to March 20, 1933, the position of Ticket Clerk-Baggageman, Peru, Indiana, was assigned to work daily, seven days per week, under the provisions of ule 8 of the Agreement effective August 1,

1929. Effective March 25, 1933, said position was changed from a seven to a six-day per week assignment. Under the latter assignment, all Sunday work and, after February 22, 1938, all holiday work, was assigned to telegraphers, not covered by the Agreement with which we are here concerned. By reason of the death of the incumbent, the position of Ticket Clerk-Baggageman at Peru was, on April 30, 1941, rebulletined as a six-day position, with the same-arrangement as theretofore with respect to Sundays and holiday work. On December 11, effective as of December 26, 1943, Rule 8 of the 1929 Agreement was temporarily suspended.and superseded by the standard Sunday and Holiday Rule currently in effect.

The claim presents two substantial questions: (1) Whether the Sunday and holiday work assigned to telegraphers, as detailed above, properly belonged to the occupant of the position on whose behalf this claim is asserted; and (2) Whether subsequent to December 26, 1943, said position was necessary to the continuous operation of the Carrier, so as to entitle the regular occupant thereof to-eight hours at rate of time and one-half for each Sunday and holiday that said position was worked by others.

The first question relates to the application of the Scope Rule of the Agreement to the position in controversy. Said Rule specifically enumerates ticket clerks and station baggagemen as among those covered. This, plus the fact that prior to March 25, 1933, the Ticket Clerk-Baggageman was assigned ,seven days per week and performed the Sunday and holiday work in issue, requires us to hold that said work properly belonged under the Clerks' Agreement and to the occupant of the position here being considered. See Awards Nos. 2858 and 2549.

It is true, as was pointed out on behalf of the Carrier, that prior to July 31, 1930, all the work, cleHcal and otherwise, in connection with the sale of tickets and handling of baggage at Peru was performed by telegraphers covered by another agreement; and it is likewise true, as was recognized and declared in Award No. 615, that Scope Rules may not always be construed as embracing all the classes of work generally enumerated therein, but may be modified as to their application by other contractual understandings, express or implied. The above factors are not of controlling importance here, however, in view of the specific language of the Scope Rule with which we are confronted, and the absence of other contractual claims to the work in controversy, as is evidenced by the declared attitude of the telegraphers employed in the office. Award No. 3054, recently written by Judge Carter and concurred in by this Board, is conclusive with respect to the second question stated above.

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 parties waived oral hearing thereon; .

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 Carrier violated the applicable Agreement as charged in the claim.

AWARD