PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

 BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS,
 FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-6086) that:


(a) Carrier violated the Rules of the Clerks' Agreement at Yuma, Arizona, when on May 16 and May 23, 1960, it required and/or permitted Mr. J. H. Clepper, Storekeeper, to suspend work on his position for the purpose of performing service on position of Truck Driver outside the regular assigned hours of the incumbent thereof, Mr. C. H. McGlocklin, and


(b) Carrier shall now be required to allow Mr. C. H. McGlocklin one hour's additional compensation for May 16, 1960, and two hours' additional compensation for May 23, 1960, at the time and one-half rate of his position.


EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is in evidence an Agree· ment bearing effective date October 1, 1940, reprinted May 2, 1966, including revisions, (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement) between the Southern Pacific Company (Pacific Lines) (hereinafter referred to as the Carrier) and its employes represented by the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes (hereinafter referred to as the Employes) which Agreement is on file with this Board and by reference thereto is hereby made a part of this dispute.


At the time of this dispute the Stores Department force at Yuma consisted of the following positions and employes:


Position Rate of Pay Hours Rest Days lncumbeat
 Storekeeper No. 103 $21.24 Daily 7 AM-4 PM Sat. & Sun. 1. H. Clepper
 Truck Driver $2.3675 Hourly 6 AM-2:30 PM Sat. & Sun. C. li. McGlocklin
 §Relief Clerk Various Various Thurs. & Fri. F. B. Smith

§Relleves Truck Driver Saturday and Sunday, works as laborer Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. `Temporarily assigned to position account regular incumbent L. R. McGiocklin off sick.


Duties of the Storekeeper are to maintain stock of materials and supplies and exercise supervision of the Stores Department force.





13490--is 259

for claim submitted, which Carrier denies, nevertheless the contractual right to perform work is not the equivalent of work performed. That principle is well established by a long line of Awards of this Division, among them: 6019, 6562, 6760, 6854, 6875, 6974, 6978, 6998, 7030, 7094, 7100, 7105, 7110, 7188, 7222, 7239, 7242, 7288, 7293, 7316, 8114, 8115, 8531, 8533, 8534, 8568, 8766, 8771, 8776, 9748 and 9749.




Carrier has conclusively shown herein the claim is unwarranted and totally lacking in merit, and asks that it be denied.


(Exhibits not reproduced).

OPINION OF BOARD: At the time of this dispute Carrier's Stores Department force at Yuma, Arizona, consisted of the positions of Storekeeper and Truck Driver. The rate of pay of the Storekeeper was $21.24 per day, with hours from 7:00 A. M. to 4:00 P. M. The Truck Driver date of pay was $2.3675 per hour with assigned hours from 6:00 A. M. to 2:30 P. M.


On May 16, 1960, at 2:00 P. M. the Storekeeper was notified that bearings, packing and wedges for journal boxes were required by the Car Department at the Rip Track. The Truck Driver, Claimant herein, was not available at that time. He returned at 2:30 P. M., the quitting time of his assignment, and quit. The Storekeeper then took the truck, loaded and delivered the materials aforementioned, completing the work at 3:30 P. M.


On May 23, 1960, at 3:00 P. M. the Storekeeper was notified that Caboose 1906 needed to be washed and supplied---this was after the Truck Driver bad quit for the day. The Storekeepr took the truck, loaded it with supplies, drove w the caboose, washed the caboose and stored the supplies on it. He completed the work at 5:30 P. M.


Petitioner contends that: (1) work of the nature here involved had not in the past been assigned to the Storekeeper; and (2) on both occasions the work should have been assignd to the Truck Driver and he should have been compensated at the overtime rate of pay. Specifically, it avers that Carrier violated Rule 22 of the Agreement which reads:




"Employes shall not be required to suspend work during regular hours to absorb overtime."

Carrier avers that there is no provision in the Agreement which prohibited it from assigning the work to the Storekeeper; and, there is no provision in the Agreement which vested the Truck Driver with the right to the work.


We find no provision in the Agreement which prohibited Carrier from assigning the work to the Storekeeper. Therefore, whether or not the Storekeeper had been assigned such work in the past is immaterial.


Since the assignment of the work to the Storekeeper was a valid exercise of an uninhibited management prerogative, Rule 22 is not relevant. We will deny the Claim.


FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

13490-12 2600

 'That the parties waived oral hearing;

 That the Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute are respec-tively 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










Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of April 1965.