(Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Southern Pacific Company (Pacific Lines)

(a) The Southern Pacific Company violated the Agreement at West Oakland, California, when it require Carmen to perform clerical work reserved to employes covered by the Clerks' Agreement; and,

 (b) The Southern Pacific Company shall now be required to allow compensation as indicated to the bel substitutes, if any, in addition to any other earning they may have earned, for April 1, 1962, and continuing for each date thereafter until clerical work being performed by Lead Carmen is restored and assigned to employes covered by the Clerks' Agreement:



OPINION OF BOARD: The Organization contends that the Agreement was violated
 when Carrier at West Oakland, California, required and/or
 permitted Lead Carmen, not covered by the Clerks' Agreement, to perform cleri
 cal work reserved to Clerks. In support of their position, the Organization
 asserts that in the Freight Train Yard Car Foreman's office, the clerical work
 is assigned to the Lead Carmen. Their duties, it claims, involves answering
 telephone calls, maintaining records of the laying off and reporting back of
 employes, preparing form CS 7153 - Mechanical Department Report of Terminal
 Delays, keeping records of all bad order cars, preparing daily information of
 cars handled on inbound and outbound freight trains and the preparation of
 monthly reports from this information. Assigning this work to employes of the
 Carmen craft, which work has historically been performed by Clerks, violates
 its Scope Rule, Petitioner believes.


Carrier defends on the theory that Lead Carmen are merely performing duties incidental to their assignment, and that Clerks do not have an exclusive right to perform the
This Board cannot agree with the contention of Carrier that the work in question is merely incidental to the Carmen's assignment. A reading of Rule 104, Classification of Work, under the Carmen's Special Rules, makes it abundently clear that there work reserved to Carmen by their Agreement.

 Rather, we are of the opinion that the disputed work is of the kind that has been performed by Clerks historically in the past. It is clerical work and must be performed by employes of the Clerks' Organization. To hold otherwise we would be obviating the Clerks' Scope Rule which reserves to the Clerks clerical work customarily and historically performed by employes of their craft. The disputed work performed in the Freight Train Yard Car Foreman's office is this type the Clerks' Agreement to perform this work would infringe on the collective bargaining agreement, duly negotiated by the parties hereto. This we are unwilling to do.

 However, we are compelled to dismiss that portion of paragraph (b) of the Statement of Claim having to do with unnamed claimants. We concur in the interpretation given to Section 1(a) of Article V, Agreement of August 21, 1954, holding that where the contract provides that claims must be presented "by or on behalf of the employes involved", a claim filed on behalf of an unnamed claimant. is so lacking in specificity as to be barred by the contract. The Organization contends that National Disputes Committee Decision 19, interpreting Article V of the August 21, 1954 Agreement, is controlling herein and that the successors and/or substitutes are adequately identified. However, that Decision was premised on the fact that the term "successors" as used in the claim referred to the successors of the named claimants as the incumbents of certain positions. This, the Committee felt adequately identified them. Such was not the case here as the Claimants were not the incumbents of specified positions. Consequently, their successors and/or substitutes could not be sdfficiently identified.

 Relative to the named claimants, Harriett Golfos, Louis Donato and John Francis, we believe the proper measure of damages is the amount they would have earned if allowed to perform the work in question less their actual compensation for the claimed period.
                Award Number 19318 Page 3

                Docket Number CL-17339


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

        That the Agreem_nt was violated in accordance with the Opinion.


                      A W A R D


        Claim sustained in part and dismissed in part per the Opinion.


            - NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

            By Order of Third Division

ATTEST: 44' fY,~LIl~
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of June 1972.
                                  Serial No. 285


              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD


                    THIRD DIVISION


            Interpretation No. 2 to Award No. 19318


                  Docket No. CL-17339


NAME OF ORGANIZATION: Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes

 NAME OF CARRIER: Southern Pacific Company (Pacific Lines)

 Upon application of the representatives of the Employes involved in the above Award that this Division interpret the same in the light of the dispute between the partie Section 3, First (m) of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934, the following interpretation is made:

 The Organization seeks an interpretation to Award No. 19318 which was the subject of a prior interpretation dated February 21, 1975. The Organization has construed In since the Board did not specifically refer to the phrase "less their actual compensation for the claimed period" in Interpretation No. 1, the Board thereby intended to award the named claimants monetary damages. In order to effect a settlement of the claim, the Organization requests the Board to order an arbitrary allowance of four period without regard to other earnings received by them during such period.

 It is indeed unfortunate that ;ather than clarify Award No. 19318, Interpretation No. 1 had the effect of further obfuscating it. The Board in Award No. 19318 held, in pertinent part: "Relative to the named claimants, Harriett Golfos, Louis Donato and John Francis, we believe the proper measure of damages is the amount they would have earned if allowed to perform the work in question less their actual compensation for the claimed period". In interpreting the foregoing la "They (the named claimants) are entitled to be compensated for the time they would have been used to perform the clerical work in question had carrier not violated the agreement by assigning this work to Lead Carmen".

 The Organization reads this language to mean that the Board purposefully dropped any reference to th the claimed period" when they explained the proper measure of damages contemplated by Award No. 1931 The Board never intended to modify Award No. 19318 by foregoing any reference to the actual earnings of the claimants as suggested by the Organization. In retrospect it is clear how this erroneous conclusion was arrived at. This Board, in the instant Interpretation, unequivocally adheres to the Opinion in Award No. 19318 which held that the proper measure of damages for Harriett Golfos, Louis Donato and John Francis is the amount they would have earned if
                      _Z_


allowed to perform the work in question less their actual compensation for the claimed period. We cannot be more explicit.

 This Board declines to order an arbitrary allowance of 4 hours per day to each claimant as requested by the Organization since that would involve an expansion of Award No. 19318 and a violation of Section 3, First (m) of the Railway Labor Act.

 Referee Robert M. O'Brien, who sat with the Division as a neutral member when Award No. 19318 was adopted, also participated with the Division in making this interpretation.

                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: ~~ is
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of March 1976.

 8 0