conference in connection with this dispute, the Organization representative stated that the claim was a continuing one from April 12, 1944, irrespective of what job Mr. Crumb had been filling. In addition thereto, the claita is for ten hours' pay, including Sundays and holidays, beginning April 12, 1944, when, as a matter of fact, neither Mr. Crumb nor Extra Gangs 6462 and 6463 were assigned to or performed any work on Sundays and holidays.

As a matter of information, below is shown, by months, the gross amount Mr. Crumb would have earned as timekeeper April 1944 to June 1945-both months inclusive and the gross amount he was paid in other classes of clerical service:

Amount would Amount actually

have earned paid for

Month as timekeeper service performed Difference

It will be observed from the foregoing tabulation that during the period April 1944 to June 1945, inclusive, with the exception of December 1944, Mr. Crumb made more money than if he had continued in service as timekeeper on Extra Gang 6462. Furthermore, had Mr. Crumb not laid off from December 7th to December 12th, 1944, his earnings for that month would have exceeded what he would have earned as a timekeeper on Extra Gang 6462.

CONCLUSION:

The Carrier has proven that there is no rule in the current agreement with the Clerks' Organization which provides for the use of employes coming within the scope of that agreement as timekeepers on extra gangs. It has also proven that the performance of clerical work, incidental to their position, by extra gang foremen or assistant extra gang foremen is not clerical work subject to the provisions of the current Clerks' Agreement. It has further proven that from a monetary standpoint Mr. Crumb was not injured as result of abolishing the job of timekeeper on Extra Gang 6462, but on the contrary, his earnings opportunity was greatly increased.

The Carrier contends Awards 1694, 1695, 1696 of your Division, cover claims squarely in line with the instant claim. Each of the claims covered by the above-mentioned Awards were denied, and the Carrier asserts the instant claim should likewise be disposed of.

OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was assigned by bulletin dated February 29, 1944, to position of Timekeeper on Extra Gang 6462. On April 1. 1944, Extra Gang 6463 was established and a part of the laborers on Extra Gang 6462 were assigned thereto. With the establishment of Extra Gang 6463, Claimant's position was abolished. Claimant thereafter exercised his seniority and worked as Car Checker and Bill Clerk in the Yard Office at Helper, Utah. He contends that the position of Timekeeper on Extra Gang 6462 was improperly abolished and that he is entitled to be compensated for his monetary loss because of having been wrongfully deprived of the timekeeping work.

The Organization contends that it has been the practice of the Carrier to assign a timekeeper from the Clerks' roster to extra gangs of twenty-five men or more. For the purpose of this discussion only, we will accept this statement as true. The Organization argues that Extra Gang 6462 had a consist of more than twenty-five men until Extra Gang 6463 was established, that the two extra gangs were in fact one and that the establishment of Extra Gang 6463 was done only for the purpose of substituting a Foreman for the Timekeeper's position.

The record shows that Extra Gang 6463 was actually set up on the records of this Carrier as a separate gang, a Foreman was regularly assigned to it who was paid the regular foreman's rate, and that the two gangs worked separately on different jobs although they were housed and boarded in the same group of outfit cars. It is also established that each of these two gangs averaged less than twenty-five employes during the time in question.

We have held that timekeeping is work incidental to the position of Gang Foreman. Whenever in the judgment of management the clerical work of a foreman's position becomes so burdensome that he is unable to perform it, it is work which must be assigned to a Clerk. When the necessity for assistance to the Foreman is past, the Clerk's position may properly be abolished and the work returned to the Foreman to whose position it is incidental. Awards 1694, 2334 and 2685.

We think the question whether one gang or two gangs shall be established under the conditions such as we have here involves solely a prerogative of management. We can understand that in doing some types of work, a large gang with one foreman can better perform it while in other kinds of work, requiring closer supervision, two gangs with a Foreman each can better do the work. The fact that the action taken may require the establishment or discontinuance of a Timekeeper's position is not a controlling factor.

It is evident that the Foreman of these two gangs were able to perform the timekeeping work as incidental to their positions. It being shown that each gang contained less than twenty-five employes, the practice asserted is not material to the issue. Under the circumstances shown, there was no violation of the Agreement or of any established practice which has been pointed out to us.

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

That the Agreement was not violated by the Carrier as charged.

AWARD