said dispute in accordance with the Agreements between the parties thereto. To grant the claim of the Employes in this case would require the Board to disregard the Agreements between the parties and impose upon the Carrier conditions of employment and obligations with reference thereto not agreed upon by the parties to this dispute. The Board has no jurisdiction or authority to take such action.

CONCLUSION

The Carrier has shown that the work involved in this dispute, as performed by the Yard Masters at Ebenezer, N. Y., was not work reserved exclusively to clerical employes by the Clerks' Rules Agreement or otherwise, and that its performance by the Yard Masters was not in any way violative of said Agreement.

Therefore, the Carrier respectfully requests your Honorable Board to deny the Employes' claim in this matter.

The Carrier demands strict proof by competent evidence of all facts relied upon by the Employes, with the right to test the same by crossexamination, the right to produce competent evidence in its own behalf at a proper trial of this matter and the establishment of a record of all of the same.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: Does the fact that the bulletin of a clerk position includes a reference to a specific type of work confer that work on the employes of the clerk craft to the exclusion of all other crafts such as to establish a breach of the agreement on a showing that employes of another craft are also performing that particular work?

We hold no.

At the Hump Yard Office, Ebenezer, New York, the preparation of a list known as CT-392 cut list and the preparation of a list for classifying trains known as CT-362 was advertised as part of the duties of the Freight Clerk. Formerly this work had been part of the duties of a clerk position, now abolished, known as "outside checker" or "mud clerk." This latter list formed the basis for the preparation of a list by the Yard Master known as CT-392, the same list advertised as part of the duties of the Freight Clerk.

The Claimant contends that since the primary duties of the Freight Clerk include the preparation of CT-392, it is a violation of the Scope Rule for employes of crafts other than clerks to do this work.

Claimant bottoms his position on the Scope Rule, which reads as follows:

Group 1-Clerks as defined in the following paragraph:

Clerk-An employe who regularly devotes not less than four hours per day to the writing and calculating incident to keeping records and accounts, writing and transcribing letters, bills, reports, statements, and similar work, and to the operation of office mechanical equipment and devices, except as provided in Rule 3-C-2. This definition also includes stockmen, shippers and receivers, tallymen, blue printers, baggage checkmen, parcel room attendants or checkers, routemen, receiving and delivery men, foremen and assistant foremen-station or storehouse, excluding shop labor foremen, gang foremen and gang leaders at Altoona works who supervise shop laborers and storehouse laborers."

To support his position, Claimant must point to specific language of the rule reserving the work exclusively to his craft or in the absence of the same an established custom and practice in support of the same conclusion.

In fact, this particular work at this location has for a long time been performed by the Yard Master and by the Freight Clerks when time permitted. In support of this, the Carrier has submitted affidavits of two employes at this location, testifying as to the accuracy of these facts.

On this basis of the record the position of the Claimant must fail.

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

That the Agreement was not violated.

AWARD