it at the station, and then adding the cars to his wheel report, and leaving an IBM list of cars set out, most certainly is a conductor's work. Whatever clerical functions are involved in doing this (if such can be considered at all), certainly is work incidental to the conductor's regular duties.
Therefore, there are basically two types of clerical claims-(1) a positional claim, and (2) a specific instance or work item claim involving exclusive clerical work or a claim that another craft or class employe had no right to perform the work, and an extra clerk should have been called or a clerk on duty and available at the location should have performed the work.
The BofRC, as the moving party, has failed to carry the burden of proof and establish the essential elements of a positional claim. The BofRC has not shown that there is regularly four hours or more time per day to be devoted to clerical duties on the night shift at West Chicago. The BofRC has not shown that conductors are regularly performing this amount of clerical work per day at this point. The BofRC has not and cannot show that conductors are performing any clerical functions (exclusive or otherwise) at West Chicago.
The BofRC likewise has failed to establish a specific instance claim of any nature, for it has not shown one instance where a conductor picking up at West Chicago has performed work which exclusively belongs to the employes it represents. The BofRC has not shown, either, that as between the rights of employes in two distinct crafts or classes the specific clerk claimant had a superior right and should have been called or should have been allowed to perform this work.
Neither of the above situations exist at West Chicago nor have they ever existed during the period of time covered by the instant claim. Accordingly, there is no semblance of merit in the BofRC's position and this claim bust be denied in its entirety.
OPINION OF BOARD: The record shows that the Division found that Carrier's conductors are involved in this dispute and through their representative, The Order of Railway Conductors and Brakemen, were afforded an opportunity to be heard pursuant to Section 3, First (j), of The Railway Labor Act. That Organization declined to participate herein.
In the handling of the dispute in its answer to Petitioner's Submission to this Board, the Carrier objected that the claim had not been handled in accordance with the requirements of Article V of the Agreement of August 21, 1954. That issue was referred to the National Disputes Committee established by Memorandum Agreement dated May 31, 1963, to decide disputes involving interpretation or application of certain stated provisions of specified National Nonoperating Employe Agreements. On March 17, 1965, that Com mittee rendered the following Finding and Decision (NDC Decision 17):
On the merits, it appears that due to a decline in business on Saturdays and Sundays the Carrier on September 8, 1958, abolished a seven-day clerical position, JT-516, at its West Chicago Station, changing it to a five-day assignment with Saturdays and Sundays as rest days. Carrier also abolished Relief Position JT-662 as of the same date, the occupant of which had been assigned to relieving the incumbent of JT-516 on Mondays and Tuesdays. The net effect of these changes was that on Saturdays and Sundays neither the JT-516 position nor its relief, Position JT-662, was worked.
Due to a continued decline in business and the inauguration of certain improvements in operational and accounting car control techniques, the Carrier on October 1, 1959, abolished the clerical position JT-516 on the grounds that the only clerical work remaining to be performed was making out yard checks and switch lists which was said to require less than two hours work per day.
The basis of the claim is that work belonging to and performed by Clerks which remained after the abolishment of the aforesaid clerical positions was thereafter performed by employes of another craft, i.e., Conductors.
Rule 1 (Scope) and Rule 66 clearly and expressly prohibit the unilateral abolishment of clerical positions and the allocation of any remaining work thereof to other than covered employes. Thus the sole dispositive question here, as is so often the case, is one of fact: Was the work performed by Conductors in this case that which had been performed by Clerks?
A preponderance of the credible evidence of record demonstrates conclusively that in the absence of switch lists prepared by Clerks, the Conductors did no more than check the cars and waybills, work which customarily and usually is performed by employes of that craft or class in the course of their regular duties. Moreover, the record further discloses that this work is required of Conductors, whether or not a switch list is prepared for them, under the Carrier's Operating Rules (Nos. 816 and 817). It is also shown that no conductor here involved was required to record, list or otherwise prepare reports of record similar to or identical with those required of the incumbents of the abolished clerical positions.
In order successfully to bring a claim of this kind within the purview of the aforesaid restrictive agreement rules, it must be established by competent evidence that the covered clerical work was, in fact, allocated to and performed by others. That showing on the facts here has not been made.