None of the activities listed are those peculiar to the position of Stationmaster. The answering of telephone calls is the function of any clerk and is one of the principal duties of a ticket clerk, which was the position claimant was filling.
The act of relaying messages from someone in authority to other employes is likewise a function performed by any clerk and does not constitute the assumption of supervisory responsibility. Even when the Stationmaster is on duty, the clerk receiving such a message would convey it to the proper party.
Again. the making out of the "necessary cash slip" is a normal function of a ticket clerk, who is required to account for any monies received and make remittance to the proper authority as required.
None of the duties cited by the General Chairman are duties peculiar to the Stationmaster's position. On the contrary, they are duties customarily performed by a ticket clerk-even while the Stationmaster is on duty. More specifically, they are duties customarily performed by the position of Ticket Clerk-Baggageman on which claimant was performing relief.
The claim is based on the proposition that claimant was required to perform the duties of the Stationmaster's position. The record is wholly lacking in evidence that claimant was in fact required to perform other than the customary duties of the ticket clerk position relieved. The facts of record do not justify an affirmative award.
OPINION OF BOARD: This claim is for a pay differential between jobs. It is asserted that relief Ticket Clerk-Baggageman, D. M. Day, at Danville, Illinois, herein called "Claimant", there filled the higher rated job of Station Master-Ticket Clerk, herein called "Station Master", on Saturdays, from April 9, 1955 to June 7, 1956, and is therefore entitled to the difference between his rate and the higher rate for those days.
Prior to his death on March 6, 1955. a Station Master worked on Saturdays at Danville. No one was thereafter formally assigned to the job until Saturday, June 9, 1956. Meanwhile, Claimant was the only clerical employe working on Saturdays.
Claimant on Saturdays performed few, if any, supervisory duties of a Station Master, at least in the sense of directing others. On the other band, Claimant on Saturdays did make up the daily remittance for the location and deal with operating employes. An assigned Station Master apparently was needed prior to March 6, 1955, and again commencing on Saturday, June 9, 1956. Absent evidence of a change in operations or the like, and there is none, it follows that between those dates there was a gap on Saturdays which Claimant filled with the Carrier's knowledge. Whether or not Claimant per- 9482-8 262
formed every duty of Station Master on Saturdays, he was responsible for on the spot performance of Station Master duties and coped with those which confronted him. Carrier could have arranged otherwise but it did not.
The claim will be sustained for the difference between Claimant's straight time rate and the straight time rate of Station Master for each Saturday on which Claimant worked beginning with Saturday. April 9, 1955 and ending with Saturday, June 2, 1956.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of heating thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employe involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employe 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