that work regularly performed by them was improperly turned over to Traveling Auditors and seek payment for the 118 hours the Auditors spent at the work. While this case is jointly submitted it has a sharply disputed issue of fact.

Carrier made a contract with Industrial Food-Crafts, Inc., for the operation of boarding camps commencing January 1, 1946. This was the first contract with this company. The contract called for monthly advances and for monthly final accountings and adjustments. Monthly advances were made by Carrier but five months went by with no accountings and no adjustments. Carrier states that some of this delay was because the employes were not familiar with the method of setting up the adjustments as required by the contract. Thereupon, arrangements were made for Traveling Auditors to set up such a plan and in doing so they computed the adjustments. Thereafter the work of making the monthly accountings and adjustments was assigned to the Distribution Section. Carrier claims that setting up accounting methods is work ordinarily and customarily done by Auditors.

Claimants submit a statement of one of the Clerks which in effect denies that they indicated they were not familiar with the required procedure when requested to do the work but they meant only that since a new contract was involved they were not familiar with it at that time, and they did not then have the time to read and study the contract when it was turned over to the Traveling Auditors.

In presenting this claim to the Board Claimants now contend they had done the same type of work under a previous contract with a different company, Hence their own evidence appears to be conflicting as to their familiarity with the required procedure.

Claimants first contend the work was removed from the Clerks' Agreement. We do not find such to be the case. By the current agreement effective June 1, 1946, Traveling Auditors for the first time were expressly included within the scope rule along with the Distribution Clerks. This was a change from the old agreement in which the Traveling Auditors were not included in the scope rule.

Accordingly the numerous awards which hold that work cannot be removed from the scope of the agreement are not controlling here. Likewise the awards holding it is improper to assign work within the agreement to employes excepted from the scope thereof are not pertinent since the Auditors are now named in the scope rule.

After setting out the positions included within the scope rule, Rule 1 (c) qualifies the Agreement in its application to Traveling Auditors, and some others, by making only some of the rules of the Agreement applicable to them, thereby excepting them from the balance of the rules including the "money rules:' Despite this restriction the fact remains that Traveling Auditors are expressly included within the scope rule. Award 3396 is not apposite here because of differences in facts and the rules involved. There Carrier abolished a position and assigned its work to a semi-accepted position and this Board held that such action violated the rule prohibiting discontinuing established positions and creating new ones to evade the rules of the Agreement.

Under Rule 7 Traveling Auditors retain their seniority rights in their respective districts from which they come. In this case none had seniority in the district where they did this work. Claimants contend this violates the principle that work can not be taken out of one district and put in another. See Award 973. However, in Award 1808 the Board ruled that a carrier may not assign work to those holding "seniority rights exclusively in another seniority district" and cited a number of awards in support of such rule. Since Traveling Auditors do retain their seniority rights in the districts from which they come, the application of such a rule to them would restrict their work to the limits of such district which surely was not the intention of the parties.

Since we find no rule of the Agreement or any established practice thereunder which sustains Claimants' contention under the facts of this case, it follows that the claim must be denied.

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 Carrier did not violate the Agreement.

AWARD