The disputed communication took place at 9 A.M., November 11, 1966, between a Clerk in the Car Tracing Bureau, Los Angeles and the Agent-telegrapher at Tempe, Arizona. The communication is as follows:


' "Clerk, Tracing Bureau, LA: This is LA Tracing. I am looking for
          a car going to Peterson. It is SFRE 29292 out Tucson 2 PM 3rd.

          Agent, Tempe: Yes, it will be out today.

          Clerk, Car Tracing Bureau, LA: Has it been there since the 4th?

          Agent, Tempe: Yes, arrived 4th.

                            Award Number 19476 Page 2

                            Docket Number TE-18030


                "Clerk, Car Tracing Bureau, LA: What time will it leave? Agent, Tempe: About 5 PM. Clerk, Car Tracing Bureau, LA: Will it make connection with LA train? Agent, Tempe: Yes. Clerk, Car Tracing Bureau, LA: Is it for Barker Foundry? Agent, Tempe: Yes."


          After timely filing of claim on the property, issue was joined on whether the disputed work is reserved exclusively to the complaining employees or whether such work may be performed by Clerks as a normal incident to--Eheir: regular duties. In the submissions before the Board, the parties cite awards in support of their respective positions. Carrier has made no attempt to,distinsqish the car tracing message involved in this claim from car tracing messages involved in various claims that were sustained by Special Board of Adjustment,553 (same parties and agreement). . ,


                          RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS


          Prior awards involving these parties and similar issues support a conclusion that the type of work here involved is reserved exclusively to the complaining employees. The claim, therefore, will be sustained.


          FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties

          to thi7 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 Agreement was violated.


                              A W A R D


                Claim sustained.


                                    NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                                    By Order of Third Division


                ATTEST: Executive Secretary


                  Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of November 1972.


' i