(f) In making assignments preference will be given to applications received, as follows:

First-From employes within the scope of the roster (as established in rule No. 30) where the vacancy occurs or new position is created, except that applications will not be considered from employes with less than thirty (30) days' seniority, unless no applications are received from qualified employes from other. rosters with more than thirty (30) days' seniority.

Second-From other employes in the seniority district in the order of their seniority.

(g) The name and seniority date of the successful applicant will be posted for a period of seven (7) calendar days where the position was advertised.

(h) New positions or vacancies as trucker or laborer will be advertised on appropriate notice, and employes desiring such positions will file their applications or same within seven (7) calendar days and be given preference over junior employes. Notices will show locations, positions, hours of service and rates of pay; however, the provisions of Rue 3 will not apply."

As there were no positions established coming within the scope of the current agreement by virtue of creation of material racks on or about April 1 1944, there was no necessity whatever for advertising of any position, therefore Rule 33 did not in any way come into operation.

The Division's attention is directed to the fact that prior to April 1, 1944 when the material and tools were distributed from receptacles, such action was not in any way considered by the petitioner as being in violation of the current agreement, and no claims were presented in connection therewith; on the contrary, the petitioner's position in connection with the distribution from such receptacles was that it was strictly in accordance with the current agreement. Such fact presents conclusive evidence that the claim in this docket is entirely without basis for the reason that the situation subsequent to April 1, 1944 is in no way distinguishable from the situation that existed prior thereto. This is clearly demonstrated by reference to the foregoing statement of facts.

CONCLUSION: The carrier submits that it has conclusively established that its action in establishing material racks on or about April 1, 1944 at the Ogden shops and roundhouse, and using mechanical department employes (shop helpers) to distribute material and tools from said racks to mechanics, did not in any way constitute a violation of the current agreement, and therefore the claim in this docket is without basis and is in no way supported by the current agreement, and should be denied.

OPINION OF BOARD: The essential facts are not in dispute. Briefly, they are as follows: Prior to March of 1944 materials from the Store Department for the repair of engines and cars were delivered, as needed, by Store Department employes to the approximate spot in the roundhouse and shops where repairs were being made.

At that time the Carrier established a different method of transferring Store Department supplies to the Mechanical Department. Instead of having them delivered to the site where cars and engines were undergoing repairs it had them delivered, in quantity lots for future use, to stock piles-one in the machine shop, one in the middle shop and one in the roundhouse. Whether these stock piles be called material racks or sub-stores is immaterial to a decision of the controversy. The quantity lots of store supplies were delivered to these stock piles by Store Department employes, When so delivered, under the accounting system adopted, control over the supplies then passed from the Store Department to te Mechanical Department. Mechanical Department employes took charge of and delivered the supplies

from the stock piles, as and when needed, to the place where cars or engines were being repaired.

The claim is presented on the theory that employes of the Store Department are being deprived of work falling within the Scope Rule of the controlling Agreement. We do not think there is any substance to the claim. The supplies are now being delivered to the Mechanical Department in no less quantity then before. The only difference is in the points of delivery. There is no showing that Store Department employes have suffered any time loss because of this change.

There must be a point in time and place where control of the Store Department over supplies passes to the department which uses them. So long as a change in method of transferring such control, from the one department to another, does not deprive employes under the agreement from work falling within the scope of it they have no cause for complaint; and, under the facts presented in this case we think the Claimants have none. Support for this view may be found in Awards Nos. 2334 and 3216 of this Division.

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 no violation of the Agreement has been established.

AWARD