All relevant facts and arguments involved in this dispute have heretofore been made known to the employe representatives.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: The Claim herein involves the work of rechecking and revising abstracts of revenue settlements covering forwarded milled-intransit traffic The Employes contend that this work is regularly assigned exclusively to positions occupied by Clerks Fairfax and Hupp, and that the Carrier improperly assigned such work to Claimants Norvell, Hurley, Harvey and Hoctor on June 20, 1951 and thereafter. The Carrier contends that this work is a part of Claimants' regularly assigned duties.

The Employes note that the positions held by Clerks Fairfax and Hupp were established in 1937 and 1938, and they admit that "Prior to that time, revision of forwarded transit was performed by Clerks occupying positions now held by claimants." In this connection it is significant that the very same bulletin which advertised the preponderating duties of Claimants' positions long before 1937 and 1938 still covers Claimants' positions it has not been changed. That bulletin includes among the preponderating duties of Claimants' positions the rechecking of "received, forwarded and overhead abstracts of revenue settlement," and thus would certainly appear sufficiently broad to including the milling-in-transit abstracts involved in the present case. They obviously are not expressly excluded. And, to repeat, the Employes themselves admit that at least prior to 1937 such abstracts were considered by practice to be within the language of the bulletin.

Indeed, the Record abundantly and significantly establishes that for many years prior to the establishment in 1937 and 1938 of the positions held by Clerks Fairfax and Hupp, and continuing after the establishment of such posttions, the occupants of Claimants' positions performed a substantial amount of rechecking and revision of milling-in-transit abstracts on forwarded freight. The fact, standing alone, that performance of such work by Claimants was temporarily deferred beginning in July 1949 can hardly support the Employes' contention that performance of same at the end of the temporary period was not proper, for Claimants were assigned to perform the very same preponderating duties both before and after the temporary deferment. The Employes do rely on the fact that the bulletin covering the positions held by Clerks Fairfax and Hupp specifically mentions milling-in-transit abstracts; but on the Record as a whole it seems reasonably clear that the specific mention of milling-in-transit abstracts in that bulletin was intended to insure that occupants of the positions covered thereby would handle milling-intransit abstracts but not non-milling-in-transit abstracts. In any event, there is nothing in the bulletin nor any action by the Carrier to indicate that it was intended that milling-in-transit abstract work should be considered as exclusively assigned to the positions occupied by Clerks Fairfax and Hupp, and, as has been noted, the bulletin covering Claimants' positions is sufficiently broad to include such work and has always been interpreted in practice to do so.

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