in situations where employes regularly devote not less than four hours per day to the writing and calculating incident to keeping reports and accounts, rendition of bills, reports and statements, handling of correspondence, and performance of similar work, or where employes regularly devote not less than four hours per day to operation of office or station mechanical equipment requiring special skill and training, such as typewriters, calculating machines, bookkeeping machines, etc., or perform a combination of these two duties, i.e. write and calculate incident to keeping records, accounts, etc., and operae office or station mechanical equipment requiring special skill and training. In many situations positions are established in Group 1 when employes perform clerical work, operate machines requiring special skill and, in addition, perform work wich might otherwise be performed by employes falling witin Groups 2, 3, 4 or 5. In such situations the higher rate is paid for performance of all work.

Positions are established in Group 2 and the other lower groups only in situations where there is sufficient volume of work to justify the establishment of such positions. In the Accounting Department, in Atlanta, there is sufficient work of sorting documents, such as waybills, abstracts, unit slips, freight bills, etc., to justify establishment of a number of Group 2 positions. Employes assigned in Group 2 perform the sorting work given them from day to day, but at the same time Group 2 employes perform the so-called assorting work, Group 1 employes also perform assorting work by assignment as such work is necessary to be performed by them.

The claim which the Brotherhood is here attempting to assert, not being supported by any provision of the effective clerical agreement, and being wholly without merit, should be denied and the Board should so hold.

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

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: Claimants were regularly assigned "Account Clerks" (Group 1) in the office of Auditor of Freight Accounts, Atlanta, Georgia, on five day positions, Monday through Friday, 8:15 A. M. to 4:45 P. M. ach had previously held positions of "Waybill Assorter" (Group 2) and held seniority in that group On April 28 and 30, 1953, claimants were required to assist Waybill Assorters where the work was unusually heavy. They were paid the higher rate of their Account Clerk positions while doing the lower rated Waybill Assorter work. Claimants contend that they were required to suspend work on their positions and absorb overtime on the Waybill Assorter positions. They demand additional compensation at the pro rata rate for the time they were used on the lower rated work.

On the days involved there were 51 Waybill Assorter positions and 407 Clerks assigned in the office. The work of the Waybill Assorters was running unusually heavy and all employes in the group were being used. The work of claimants was not running heavy and they were used to assist the Waybill Assorters for the hours stated in the claim.

The Carrier insists that Group 2 employes do not have the exclusive right to perform all Waybill Assorting work. Rule 1 classifies the employes under the agreement into groups and Rule 2 defines each group. Clerks are defined by Rule 2(a) as employes who regularly devote not less than 4 hours per day to the writing and calculating incident to keeping records and accounts, rendition of bills, reports and statements, handling of correspondence and similar work. Rule 2 (c) defines Waybill Assorters as employes engaged in assorting waybills. It will be observed that while Rule 2 (a) does not specifically mention waybill assorting as an assigned duty of clerical workers, the rule does contemplate that they shall perform work other than that specifically assigned. If this were not so the rule would not contain the language "who regularly devote not less than four (4) hours per day" to the clerical work specified in the rule. Since all work within the scope of the

agreement is performed by the various classes of employes classified in Rule 1 and defined in Rule 2, it is clear that the agreement itself contemplates that a clerical worker doing 4 hours of work defined in Rule 2 (a) shall perform 4 hours of other work within the scope of the agreement. Under such a situation, the purpose of defining clerical workers in Rule 2 (a) is to identify the higher skilled employes for pay purposes and to preserve to that group the higher rated positions. It does not have the effect of giving them clerical work exclusively or of limiting them to the performance of that work only. Nor does the applicable rule purport to give Waybill Assorters the exclusive right to perform all of this lower rated work. It is true that seniority rosters are maintained in each group. As to Group 1 employes this is done in order to determine the order in which employes in this higher rated group may be cut off in force reduction and exercise any seniority rights they may have to the lower rated Group 2 positions. As to Group 2 employes the maintenance of a seniority roster serves to determine those in that group who are entitled to move up into the higher rated Group 1 positions when vacancies occur or additional positions are required in that group. We concur with the general views contended for by the Organization that employes on one seniority roster may not ordinarily be used to perform the work of positions whose occupants are on a different seniority roster. But when it is the clear intent of the agreement, as here, that higher rated employes on one roster may perform the lower rated work of employes on another roster, there is no violation of the agreement for them to do. Since Rule 2 (a) contemplates the use of clerical workers in lower rated work at their higher rate of pay, it cannot be said that their use in such work was for the purpose of absorbing overtime under Rule 30.

The foregoing conclusion is supported by the mutual interpretation placed upon the applicable rules by the parties over a long period of years. Carrier's Auditor of Freight Accounts states positively "that for years it has been our practice to utilize the services of Group 1 employes having knowledge of so-called accrual assorting to assist for short periods in assorting waybills incident to machine listings." The Organization's Local Division and Vice General Chairman, does not unequivocally deny the existence of the practice when he stated in his letter of September 22, 1954:

"The first I ever heard of Clerks being required to lay aside their assigned work and report to the head Clerk in charge of waybill assorting for work in that department was sometime in 1962. I mentioned this in conference with Mr. Noah Garner, Auditor of Freight Accounts, pointing out that, if such a practice did in fact exist, it was contrary to the Clerks' Agreement. * * *"

We think the provisions of Rule 2 (a) indicate the correctness of the Carrier's position but, if there be some question about its meaning, it is one that could be resolved by the practice followed with reference to it over the years. The fact that Rule 2 (a) does not require a clerical worker to perform the defined work of the position for 8 hours per day, is of itself an indication that the practice over the pears was in accord with the meaning of the rule as it is written.

There is still another reason why the claim must be denied. The evidence will not sustain a finding that any overtime was absorbed under Rule 30, which provides:

"Employes will not be required to suspend work during regular hours to absorb overtime, except as otherwise provided in Rule 26."

It is made clear from the record in this case that the original purpose of the absorbing overtime rule was to prohibit a carrier from suspending an employe during his regular assigned hours to equalize or absorb overtime which he had already earned. In more recent agreements it has been interpreted to have a broader scope, to-wit: That an employe may not be taken from his regular assignment and used on the work of another position where it would result in depriving the employe of the other position of over-

time which would otherwise accrue. For the purposes of this award we assume the correctness of the broader interpretation, but it cannot control the result here. This, for the reason that the record does not establish that the Waybill Assorters would have earned any overtime but for the use of claimants. The evidence shows that it was not necessary that the sorting of waybills be kept current. This work could and would have been held over and performed when it was reached. No situation existed that would have necessitated overtime under the facts disclosed. To have a valid claim, claimants must show by evidence beyond the realm of speculation and conjecture that Waybill Assorters were deprived of overtime which would have accrued except for the use of claimants. The evidence does not show that such was the case. Consequently, under the newer and broader interpretation of the absorbing overtime rule the claimants have failed to sustain their claim.

We necessarily conclude that the record fails to establish that claimants have a valid claim.

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. '

AWARD