has been engaged in that work during his assigned hours and given to some other employe who has not been engaged in the performance of that work.

The claim should be denied.

Copy of the correspondence between the parties relative to this dispute is attached hereto. The Carrier cannot state that this case has been discussed in conference between the representatives of the parties on the property. The representatives of the employes have made no request to discuss this case with the designated representative of the Carrier and there has been no correspondence between the representatives of the parties relative thereto since the decision by the highest officer of the Carrier designated to handle such matters dated May 18, 1961, copy of which decision is included in Carrier's Exhibit "C", attached hereto.

(Exhibits not reproduced).

OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute arose in the Carrier's Data Processing Office in St. Louis, Missouri, where each of the two clerical employes here involved held positions titled Clerk-Machine Bureau, carrying the same rate of pay, working hours, and rest days. Claimant was the senior of the two.

In 1961 the Data Processing Office was requested to prepare a statement of revenues and movement of cars or traffic. It was prepared by key punch operators punching I.B.M. cards from data in bound volumes of waybills and abstracts of waybills. Machine listings of the data on those cards were then produced by the I.B.M. machine. The work in dispute consisted of visually checking these listings to see that the cards were properly punched to show correct revenues, routing of cars, station numbers and commodities.

The record shows that the work was performed by the junior clerk during his regularly-assigned hours and that it also required overtime and work on rest days.

The Employes emphasize that the position held by Claimant was identical to the one held by the junior employe as to title, location, rate of pay and hours of assignment and that the work on the special statement was "not a part of any assignment"; that Claimant's fitness and ability to perform the work was not questioned and that, therefore, on the basis of Claimant's seniority standing he "should have worked the overtime . . :', citing Rule 15-Seniority and Promotion.

The Board finds no special significance in the identity of job titles, location, rates of pay and hours of work. The real question here is whether the duties and job content of the two positions were so identical as to have required the Carrier to assign the special statement work to the senior of the two applicants. On this question of fact there appears to be an irreconcilable conflict. The Carrier consistently asserted on the record that the regular work of the junior clerk was more closely related to that performed by him on the special statement than was the regular work assigned the Claimant. During the progress of the claim on the property, the Employes placed primary reliance on the seniority principle, but in their rebuttal brief filed with this Board they point out that Claimant's regular duties also encompassed work similar to that required in preparing the special statement. Neither party offered any proof of its respective assertion. In the absence thereof, the Board cannot resolve the conflict. Thus the substantive issue of whether the Agreement was violated cannot be reached. (Cf, Award 11786).

Accordingly, the claim will be dismissed.

That the parties waived oral hearing;

That the claim should be dismissed for reasons stated in Opinion.

AWARD