It is Carrier's position that the duties assigned to the Claimants in the dispute before the Board were duties that fell within the scope of the bulletin description of the positions involved, were performed during the hours of their assignments, and no overtime was worked and none absorbed. The claims are lacking in merit as the agreement was not violated, and they should be denied.
All data in this submission have been presented to the Employes and made a part of the question in dispute.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant Johnson was an extra clerk who was called and used to fill position No. 55, Inbound Bill Clerk, at Johnston Yard, Memphis Tennessee. The duties of position No. 55 included:
The Carrier alleges that Claimant erroneously prepared cards for seven carloads of merchandise in Train CN-1. These cards were passed on to another clerk and were then applied to the cars. When the error was discovered, the clerk who applied the cards was instructed to apply the correct destination to the cars. Train MS-1 was waiting to be carded by the clerk who had been assigned to correct the errors made by the Claimant. In order to prevent any further delay, the Chief Yard Clerk instructed Johnson to take the cards prepared for this train and apply them to the cars. The instant claim was filed on behalf of Johnson alleging that he should not have been required to apply the cards to the cars because that duty was not part of his regular assignment.
In case No. 2, Claimant L. L. Stewart was the regular occupant of Relief Position No. 2. On December 8, 1957, he relieved Outbound Bill Clerk, Position No. 62, Johnston Yard, Memphis, Tennessee as the incumbent was observing one of his rest days. The bulletined duties of this position included the following:
As there was no work for him to perform on outbound trains between certain hours he was assigned to assist in the preparation of 722 reports and stamp waybills on inbound trains SN-3 and NM-4. A claim was filed on behalf of Stewart alleging that he was required to perform work which was not part of the assigned duties of the position he was filling.
The Petitioner contends that the Carrier violated Rule 38 of the Agreement by requiring Claimants to leave their positions and perform work on other positions. The Carrier contends that the claim is not supported by any rule or agreement.
The Carrier states that bulletins do not grant or take away rights or duties. They are simply advertisements which notify interested parties that certain jobs are available and which give interested employes sufficient infor- 11923-22 13g
motion to enable them to bid for the jobs. It is the position of the Petitioner that in both the instant cases the employes were required to leave their assigned jobs to perform work not remotely related or accessory to the positions they were filling. The Carrier's position is that so long as the Claimants were paid a rate as high or higher than the employe who customarily performs such functions it has the right to add any duties at any time to the positions. Carrier cites Award 1316 (Wolfe):
Neither the record nor any argument advanced by the Petitioner points to any rule or agreement violated by the Carrier which prohibits the Carrier from assigning the duties in question to the Claimants.
FINDINGS: The Thid 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 respec^tively 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