As indicated by the foregoing quoted correspondence, it is the contention of the employes that the Carrier improperly removed the work of making an afternoon yard check at the Yellow Cab Outside Yard from under the Scope of the Clerks' Working Agreement and allegedly reassigned such work to. employes (Yardmen) in another class of service.

Copies of the Working Agreement, effective January 15, 1955, in effect between this Carrier and the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, are on file with the Third Division.

OPINION OF BOARD: Carrier employed three yard engines in aroundthe-clock operations at the General Motors Truck and Coach Plant No. 2, which is known as the Yellow Cab Plant. Adjacent to the plant are five tracks, known as Yellow Cab Outside Yard, which hold approximately 200 cars. Claimant was employed at this location as Yard Clerk with regularly assigned hours from 7:00 A. M. to 3:00 P. M. He checked the entire yard for location of cars and this was commonly known as 7:00 A. M. yard check. In addition, prior to the period of the Claim, he was assigned to work three hours overtime to provide a current check of the yard. These checks enabled the Yard Foreman and yard crews to know the exact location of cars (track number and spot).

During the period for which claim for compensation is made Carrier terminated Claimant's overtime assignment. It admits that during this time the Yard Foreman and yard crews were required to check the yard to locate the track number and spot of cars designated on the switching lists. The performance of this work, Petitioner alleges, violated the following provision of the Scope Rule:

"Positions within the scope of this agreement belong to the employees covered thereby, and nothing in this agreement shall be construed to permit the removal of positions or work from the application of these rules, except by agreement between the parties signatory hereto."

Carrier contends: (1) no rule in the Agreement prohibited Carrier from discontinuing the yard check Claimant had performed on overtime; (2) it is the prerogative of Carrier to determine what work is to be performed and the

time of its performance; and (3) no rule in the Agreement requires the Carrier to have performed work it does not need or want performed.

The record makes clear that the work performed by the Yard Foreman and yard crews had the same objective as the work performed by Claimant .and was necessary to Carrier's operation. It was, therefore, work within the coverage of the Scope Rule, sup.-a, which could not be removed therefrom absent agreement between the parties. See Award Nos. 7129, 7168, 11686, 12414; cf. Award Nos. 8236, 10314. We will sustain paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Claim.

Carrier moves to strike paragraph (3). There is no showing that others were involved or affected; therefore, paragraph (3) of the claim is dismissed.

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

That the parties waived oral hearing;

That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Acct, as approved June 21, 1934 ;

That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

That. the Carrier violated the Agreement.

AWARD