which was exclusively covered by the scope of the Clerks' Agreement, as the employes are attempting to establish. The Clerks' Organization does not, as has been conclusively shown, have exclusive claim to any station work at Rothschild, Wisconsin.

The principle involved in the instant dispute is identical to that involved in Third Division Awards 9219 and 9220, which, as stated, had the same parties to dispute and the same rules and in this regard, it is significant to note that Awards 9219 and 9220 denied the employes' claim.

There is no basis for this claim. There has been no violation of the schedule rules. The Carrier respectfully requests that the claim be denied.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: Carrier maintained two clerk positions, No. 17 and No. 705 at Rothschild, Wisconsin. Position No. 17 is a six-day position to which the occupant is assigned Tuesday through Sunday with the rest day on Monday; Position No. 705 is a five-day position on which the employe works Monday through Friday with Saturday and Sunday as rest days. Effective November 5, 1960, Carrier abolished Position No. 705, and the agent at Rothschild was assigned the remaining clerical work previously performed by the occupant of Position No. 705. In addition, the agent performed the duties of the occupant of Position No. 17 on Mondays, the assigned rest day of that employe. Effective January 30, 1961 Carrier took this rest day work from the agent and assigned it to the occupant of Position No. 17 on an overtime basis.

Claim is made by employe H. A. Randrup, occupant of Position No. 17, that Carrier violated the Clerks' Agreement when it assigned the clerical duties of the abolished Position No. 705 to the agent who is outside the Scope of the Agreement. Request is made for overtime pay for the Mondays that the agent worked on the rest days of the occupant of Position No. 17.

Petitioner contends that the work was assigned to the clerks and, therefore, was exclusively theirs under the Scope Rule. He argues that Rule 1 (e) prohibits the removal of positions from the Scope Rule unless made in the manner prescribed in Rule 57, which is by way of negotiation and agreement. The contention of this party is that position and work are synonymous, and, therefore, removal of work is also prohibited.

Carrier denies that the disputed work was ever exclusively performed by clerks, and maintains that assignment of work does not grant to that class of employes the exclusive right to perform these duties. It also rejects the interpretation that position is synonymous with work.

The basic question to be answered is whether the work transferred to the agent is exclusively reserved to clerks. Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that the work transferred to the agent was not exclusively performed by the clerks. The parties, the factual situation, the contention and the Agreement in the instant case are similar to those in Award 12148. Since our finding of failure to show exclusiveness is the same as that in Award 12148, we correspondingly follow our reasoning presented there, and again hold that the Agreement was not violated.

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 of the parties was not violated.

AWARD