the Shop Crafts Agreement in accordance with the rules and practice of both the Shop Crafts Agreement and the Clerical Agreement since Raceland Car Shops and Raceland Stores were placed in operation October 16, 1929.

2. This case seeks transfer of such work from the Shop Crafts Agreement to the Clerical Agreement.

3. There has been no violation of the Clerical Agreement and the claim should be denied in its entirety.

r r * r r

(Exhibits not reproduced).

OPINION OF BOARD: Notice of the pendency of this dispute before the Third Division was served on the Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America in accordance with the provisions of Section 3, First, (j), of the Railway Labor Act. That labor organization declined to participate herein. The Board may now, therefore, properly proceed to the consideration of this claim on its merits.

The evidence establishes that on this property the work of operating both on-track and off-track self-propelled cranes has been performed by members of the Carmen craft or class of employes, covered by the Shop Crafts' Agreement, since 1929.

It is the position of the Employes, however, that the work of operating the four cranes used to deliver and move materials in the Car Shops has belonged to employes covered by the Clerks' Agreement since the effective date of Agreement No. 7, January 1, 1945, which among other things, lists "* * * locomotive crane engineers (Stores Department)" as within Group 2 of the Scope Rule (Rule 1) of the basic Agreement.

On the undisputed facts of this record, the foregoing contention of the Employes is untenable. It is now too well established to require citation of authority that where, as here, a Scope Rule lists positions but does not describe the job content or duties thereof, those covered thereby who assert an exclusive right to perform the work of those positions, must show by a preponderance of credible evidence that traditional custom and practice establish such right. Here the uncontroverted evidence establishes that the work claimed has never been performed by covered clerical employes, but has been assigned to and exclusively performed by others on this property since 1929.

To comply with the request of the Employes in this case by sustaining the claim, the Board would, in effect, order the removal of work from the coverage of one agreement and place it under another. That we are without power or authority to do so is clear.

In view of the foregoing, the Board finds no merit in this claim. It will, therefore, be denied.

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 the Agreement was not violated.

AWARD