All data herein submitted have been presented to the duly authorized representative of the Employes and are made a part of the particular question in dispute.

The Carrier reserves the right, if and when it is furnished with the submission which has been or will be filed ex parte by the Employes in this case, to make such further answer as may be necessary in relation to all allegations and claims as may be advanced by the Employes in such submission, which cannot be forecast by the Carrier at this time and have not been answered in this, the Carrier's initial submission.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: Prior to August 21, 1957 the 2nd Relief Clerk in the Mechanical Department at Macon, Georgia was assigned the work of checking time tickets, and he performed this work once a week, on Monday only. On that day Carrier issued instructions to the First and Third Shift Engine Dispatchers and their Relief (the Claimants in this case) to begin immediately to check daily time tickets or time claims on hand when they reported for duty. Claimants complied with the instructions but filed the present claim asserting that Carrier's action violated various provisions of the Agreement. While other rules are cited, Petitioner bases its case on Rule 37 which reads: "Employes will not be required to suspend work during regular hours to absorb overtime except as otherwise provided in the Agreement." Petitioner contends that if the incumbent of the 2nd Relief Clerk position had been permitted to perform this work (which he had previously performed as a part of his regular duties) in the manner Carrier had it performed effective August 21, 1957 (daily) it would have had to be done on an overtime basis. And that by its action in having Claimants perform this work during the hours of their regular assignment Carrier absorbed this overtime in violation of Rule 37.

The "absorption of overtime rule" has been before this Board in numerous cases. No useful purpose would be served by a review of all the sustaining and denial awards. An examination of the awards, however, indicates that the ultimate decision in each case was based upon the resolution of a question of fact. Most of the awards holding that the rule was violated were cases where the carrier either (1) had required an employe to discontinue work on his regular position and fill a vacancy on another position; or (2) had required an employe to suspend work on his position and go to another location to perform work on another position which would otherwise have had to be performed on an overtime basis. Illustrative awards are 3416, 4499, 5315, 5876, 6015, 8004, 8080 and 9823. Neither of these situations existed in the present case. Here the Claimants were not removed from their regular positions to fill vacancies in other positions; nor were they required to suspend work on their regular assignments and go to other locations to perform work on other positions. Instead they were merely required by their employer to perform this additional duty during their regular hours on their regular assignment at the same location. From the record it appears that Claimants had plenty of time in their daily schedule to perform this duty and get all their other work done. Illustrative awards denying the claim under similar circumstances are: 5331, 5820, 7082, 7187, 7365, 7783 and 8312.

Unless it has restricted itself by the Agreement, the assignment of work necessary for its operations is the prerogative of the Carrier. "It is the function of good management to arrange the work, within the limits-

tion of the Collective Agreement, in the interests of efficiency and economy." Award 5331.

Here in order to expedite the transmission of time tickets to the Accounting Office in Atlanta, Carrier decided that the tickets should be checked daily instead of weekly and assigned this work to Claimant dispatchers. No rule of the Agreement limits Carrier's right to apportion the work of checking time tickets to Engine dispatcher employes. The work was clearly connected with the duty of dispatching train crews. The fact that Carrier previously had not required Claimants to do this work daily did not restrict its right to add this duty to Claimants' positions. There is nothing in the record to show that Carrier's action was motivated by a desire to avoid the payment of overtime. We conclude, therefore, that Carrier was within its rights in requiring Claimants to check time reports each day when reporting for duty, and that the "absorption of overtime rule" is not applicable to the situation in this case. It follows that the Agreement was not violated.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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

AWARD