OPINION OF BOARD: The parties are in disagreement as to the assignment of work after the abolishment of the position of Assistant Warehouse Foreman on June 13, 1960 at the Freight Agency Office, Columbus, Georgia. Organization maintains that Carrier assigned all of the duties of the abolished position to Warehouse Foreman A. B. Snell and that Mr. Snell performed these duties in addition to his own from June 14, 1960 to September 20, 1960. It further states that on the latter date Pick Up and Delivery Clerk J. M. Miller was assigned to perform the work which had hitherto been. done by the Assistant Warehouse Foreman. Carrier, on the other hand, claims that after the abolishment of the position Pick Up and Delivery Clerk Miller was instructed to perform a small portion of the remaining clerical duties when. necessary. On September 20 and the subseqeunt dates enumerated in the claim, he performed these clerical duties which on June 13 he was advised to, assume when the need arose. Carrier emphasizes that this work had not been assigned to Warehouse Foreman A. B. Snell.

In its claim Organization maintains that Carrier violated the rules of the Clerks' Agreement, specifically Rule 34, when it required Pick Up and Delivery Clerk Miller, at a salary rate of $461.89 per month, to perform work assigned to Warehouse Foreman with a salary of $497.44 per month. It, therefore, asks that Clerk Miller be paid the difference between his regular salary and the higher rate of the Foreman for the days specified in the claim.

Organization concedes that if the work in question had been assigned directly to Mr. Miller after the Assistant Warehouse position was abolished, the Agreement would not have been violated since Mr. Miller was receiving a higher rate than the occupant of the position prior to its abolishment. In view of the fact, however, that Carrier did not make this assignment of duties directly to him but later assigned to him duties that belonged to the Foreman, Organization claims that Mr. Miller is entitled to the rate of pay accruing to the higher position.

The record does not resolve the conflict concerning the assignment of the duties of the position after it was abolished. Organization supports its position with the statement that Mr. Miller continued with his work in the Agency Freight Station as Assistant to the Cashier until September 20 when he was instructed to desert his duties in the Freight Agency Office proper and go. into the Warehouse adjoining the Freight Agency Office and perform Foreman duties. It asserts that the Foreman took over these duties and performed them during the period of June 14 until September 20. It denies that Mr. Miller or any clerk was notified to take on the clerical work of the abolished position when necessary.

Carrier, in its submission, maintains that Pick Up and Delivery Clerk Miller was personally notified that he was to assume the clerical work of the Assistant Warehouse Foreman since he had time for this occasional additional work. It points out that the Warehouse is part of the Freight House and that Mr. Miller's duties as a utility clerk did not confiine him to the specific location near the Cashier. Moreover, it emphasizes that these additional duties were only a small portion of the Warehouse work and were distinctly clerical, for they consisted of such activities as placing seals on merchandise cars, making a record of these, putting pull tags on cars and occasionally checking freight.

With conflict in the record relative to facts essential to a proper determination of this dispute and with lack of a method at disposal of this Board to resolve conflicts in evidence, the claim must be dismissed.

That the parties waived oral hearing;

AWARD