this case, to make such further answer as may be necessary in relation to all allegations and claims as may be advanced by the petitioner 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: Effective February 1, 1957, the position of Stationmaster at Tucson, Arizona, was abolished. The record shows that this position had been established pursuant to a letter agreement dated July 16, 1943, which among other things, excepted the position from certain rules of the Agreement, and that subsequently, by February 1, 1955, these exceptions were removed so that the position was brought within full coverage of the Agreement.

On this appeal, Petitioner does not contest the right of the Carrier to abolish the position of Stationmaster on proper notice. Petitioner contends that the Clerks' Agreement was violated by the action of the Carrier in assigning the work of the Stationmaster position, upon the abolishment of that position, to the Ticket Agent covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement, and claims that such duties should be restored to the scope and operation of the Clerks' Agreement with monetary compensation to the Claimant until the violation is corrected.

The Scope Rule of the relevant Agreement sets forth the class of employes covered thereby but does not specifically enumerate the work reserved to them. When a scope rule of an agreement is of such general nature, the right to the work must stem from tradition and historical practice; and the Petitioner has the burden of proof on such an issue. See Awards 7338, 10455, 10762.

Petitioner asserts that the work of the Stationmaster which existed at the time the position was abolished has been historically and traditionally assigned to and performed by employes classified and rated under the scope and operation of the Clerks' Agreement in that such work was assigned to and performed by the position of Chief Clerk-Cashier, subsequently reclassified to Chief Clerk, then assigned to the Stationmaster when that position was established and was performed by that position before and after that position was fully covered by the Agreement. Carrier asserts that the work for which the Stationmaster position had been established had disappeared, that the only work remaining at the time the position was abolished was general supervision of baggage room employes, red cap porters and janitors, that such work was insufficient for a full time position, that prior to 1932 such supervisory work was included in the duties of the Ticket Agent, and was assigned to the Freight Agent upon abolishment of the Ticket Agent position in 1932, that the Freight Agent retained such work when the Ticket Agent position was re-established in 1936, that upon establishment of the position of Stationmaster such work was assigned to that position with the duties for which the position was established, that when the latter duties of the Stationmaster disappeared and the position was accordingly abolished, the general supervisory work referred to was returned to the Ticket Agent from where it "originally flowed." Petitioner disputes these assertions of Carrier except insofar as they indicate that general supervision of baggage room employes, red cap porters and janitors was the work of and was performed by the Stationmaster.

Thus, the crucial questions here involve the work of the Stationmaster which existed at the time the position was abolished and whether that work and general supervision of baggage room employes, red cap porters and janitors were exclusively reserved to that position by reason of tradition, custom or historical practice. If the work was not so reserved, the Carrier was not barred from assigning it to another craft. See Awards 8755, 9344, 10014, 10104.

In support of its assertions that the work of the Stationmaster historically stemmed from the Chief Clerk-Cashier position, Petitioner cites Form C-21 Final issued as a result of an arbitration award, which became effective January 1, 1927. While Form C-21 Final classified and rated the position of Chief Clerk-Cashier, it does not to the extent shown in the record set for the duties or work of that position. Nor do Awards 6209 and 2940, cited by Petitioner, which concerned disputes between the parties here, the latter award involving the same Stationmaster position, shed any light on that question. Form C-21 Final an<3 the awards relied on do not establish the work of the Stationmaster which Petitioner claims existed at the time the position was abolished or that general supervision of baggage room employes, red cap porters and janitors was traditionally and historically reserved to that position.

Petitioner also relies on two letters from the Claimant, letters from two clerks and a retired clerk, all of which are dated subsequent to Petitioner's original submission and were presented in its "Rebuttal Brief" filed at hearing. Carrier also presented for the first time as an attachment to its "Statement At Oral Hearing" filed at hearing a statement of the Freight Agent at Tucson, who had occupied the position of Ticket Agent, dated subsequent to Carrier's original submission. Such presentation of these letters and the statement of the Freight Agent was untimely under the requirements of Circular No. 1 of this Board. Award 9552. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that the contents of these documents demonstrate the sharp conflict in the factual assertions of the parties.

Petitioner attacks the correctness of Carrier's assertions by quoting a portion of the "Position of Employes" submitted by the Telegraphers' Organization in Docket TE-190, Award 281, which dismissed a case between the Telegraphers' Organization and the Carrier here upon joint request, and by stating "We were not furnished with a copy of Carrier's rebuttal in Docket TE-190; however, understand that Carrier did not dispute the Organization's statement above quoted, . " However, reference to Docket TE-190 reveals that the Carrier did take exception to and disputed the statement of the Telegraphers' Organization relied on by the Petitioner.

At the panel discussion of this case, objection was made to any reference to or quotation from Docket TE-190 other than Petitioner's quotation from that docket. Considering that Petitioner quoted from the Telegraphers' submission in Docket TE-190 and stated that it understood that the Carrier did not dispute such quotation, without indicating any basis for such an understanding, the Board is obligated in the proper performance of its duties to consider Docket TE-190 which, under these circumstances, is the best evidence of whether the alleged admission was made in that docket.

Considered as a whole, the record reveals substantial and material conflicting factual assertions and that Petitioner has failed to sustain its

AWARD