Amount

2 hour $2.62 $5.24 2. Supplied Car #10907 on Train

call #4, departing 7:55 A.M. with

12 loaves Pulman bread;

2 hour $2.62 $5.24 3. Supplied Car #10238 for Train

call #7, departing 11:25 A.M. with

6 4ts. milk and 70 half pts. mills

from Terry Dairy Company;

2 hour $2.62 $5.24 4. Supplied Car #10237 for Train

call #8, departing 3:20 P.M. with

12 loaves Pullman bread from

Colonial Baking Company.

Amount

Total Number of Calls:

2 2-hour calls @ $2.50 per hour-$ 5.00 - -$10.00

1 8-hour call @ $2.50 per hour-$20.00 20.00

4 2-hour calls @ $2.385 per hour-$ 4.77 19.08

6 2-hour calls @ $2.62 per hour-$ 5.24 31.44

4 2-hour calls @ $2.48 per hour-$ 4.96 19.84

Total amount of calls $100.36

EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Missouri Pacific Railroad maintains a Commissary Store at Little Rock, Arkansas, which is a part of the Supply Department over which a General Storekeeper whose office is located at St. Louis, Missouri, has jurisdiction.

words, hang up and go home-and get $5.00 for it. We do not believe for a moment that such is the intent or spirit of the 40-hour week agreement. We believe the intent and spirit of the agreement is to release employes for two days each week, not to disrupt rest days with calls to perform five to ten minutes work when the Carrier has an employe on duty who can perform such work incident to his own duties.

It is obvious that the small amount of work here under considerationtoo insignificant, in our opinion, to be worthy of Involvement in a dispute of this kind-could have no effect upon this claimant's regular work week. It could not be held over and included in the five day assignment and even if it could there would be no necessity thereby created for the working of overtime on any of the assigned days. Yet for this insignificant amount of work, the Employes would disrupt the five day week program and demand work on rest days because the Carrier would be required to pay extra if it so used them.

In some recent submissions in other dockets this organization has taken this Carrier to task as to what the Employes choose to call the "horrible example". In Docket CL-5467 their claim was for a call payment of three hours at punitive rate for three hours work. When we pointed out that by their interpretation of the rules a minimum two-hour call would be due for even fifteen minutes of the three hour period they called it a "horrible example". They said the Carrier was measuring them by its own yardstick to suggest they would make any "horrible example" claims. Yet here you have claims based on the so-called "horrible example" itself with nothing else involved-a call claim for less than ten minutes work-work that is incident to the duties of a Carrier supervisor.

We have made it clear in this submission that we do not consider the work in dispute is covered by the scope of the Clerks' Agreement; therefore, it is our position that none of the rules cited by the Employes have any application to It. If the work was covered, then the call rule would prescribe the method of paying the employe required by the Carrier to perform it. We do not see how any other rule would be applicable to the work even if it were covered.

It is the position of the Carrier that there has been no violation of the Clerks' Agreement in the action that brought on this dispute.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: With the establishment of the 40-hour week, Carrier reduced the work week of its employes at its commissary store at Little Rock, Arkansas, to 5 days. In preparation for the closing of the commissary on Saturdays and Sundays, Carrier made a "Portakold Refrigerator" available to its dining car inspector at Little Rock to draw sufficient food supplies from the commissary store on Fridays for passing cars that might need replenishing on Saturdays and Sundays. On certain holidays and rest days of the Claimant the regularly assigned occupant of the position of Commissary Storekeeper at Little Rock, which days are specifically set forth in a tabulation appended to the Statement of Claim, a dining car inspector made local purchases of food supplies from local dealers by telephone for delivery direct to dining cars and office cars moving through that terminal. It is the ordering of those supplies by the dining car inspector which forms the basis for the employes' claim herein. It is the employes' contention that that work was subject to the scope of the Carrier's agreement with the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks and that it was a violation of that agreement for the dining ear inspector or employes not within its scope to perform it. The Carrier contends that when it does not choose to have the supplies pass through the commissary store no employes in the Commissary department has any right to the work of purchasing or handling them.

It would serve no purpose to here set forth the varying contentions of

the parties with respect to the historical practice concerning the performance of this type of work at the Little Rock Station. Suffice it to say that the record supports a finding that the making of local purchases of supplies for the Commissary at Little Rock, which in turn was the source of supply for the dining cars, was handled by the Commissary Storekeeper exclusively prior to the advent of the 40-hour week and also on Monday through Friday thereafter. Under such circumstances the disposition of this claim is governed by the principles established by this Board in those awards of this Board which hold that work performed six days per week by a clerk is within the scope of the Clerks' Agreement on Sunday as well. See Awards 4059, 4477 and Awards therein cited. That principle was not changed or abrogated by the 40-hour Week Agreement. It follows that a sustaining award is in order.

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 Carrier violated the Agreement.

AWARD