William M. Edgett, Referee


        (Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company


                    STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-6581) that:


        (1) Carrier violated, and continues to violate, the Clerks' current Agreement beginning on or about September 9, 1967, when it instructed and required Carmen at Tyler Yard to handle Company mail and/or baggage between the Yard Office and cabooses.


        (2) That Messenger Phillip Edwards be paid for two additional hours time each Monday, Tuesday and Friday; Relief Messenger W. C. Anderson be paid for two additional hours time each Wednesday, and furloughed or unassigned employee Calvin Smith be paid for two additional hours time each Thursday when Carmen performed a part of their mail handling duties beginning with September 22, 1967, and for sub^<quent dates un


        (3) That Mail-Duplicating Clerks A. L, Turner end L. A. Wright sash be paid for two hours additional time for each day Carmen performed a part of their mail handling duties, effective September 22, 1967, and likewise for each subsequent date of the violation until corrected.


        (4) That Carrier's records be made available and checked for determining the amount due each Cla


        OPINION OF BOARD: About September 9, 1967 Carrier discontinued the operation of

        a bus between Tyler and Pine Bluff. It-had been used to trans

        port company mail and it was then necessary to make other arrangements. Carries

        began to use freight cabooses to carry the mail. It had Carmen take the mail to and

        from the Yard Office and the caboose.


        The claim alleges a violation of the Scope Rule. Therefore Carrier,conscioua of a very large num Clerks have not exclusively handled mail on the property.


        The weight of decision attached to the "exclusivity" theory is overwhelming. Claimants forcefull point out that the Carmen's Agreement does not contain language which shows an intent to assign them mail handling. It is true that the Carmen's Agreement does not support Carrier's position. This does not advance the claim however. The


. .: a,.
                          Award Number 19534 page 2

                          Docket Number CL-18215


        silence of the Carmen's Agreement on the subject is of no real significance to a determination of the claim. The cases have held that under a general scope rule a claimant moat prove system-wide exclusive assignment. This, it is true, is a particularly onerous burden when clerical work is involved. No attempt was made to meet it and the fact that the Carmen's Agreement does not spell out moil handling does not aid cl


        Of course it is not necessary to prove exclusive system-wide assignment unless the Scope rule is "general". Claimants allege that the rule on this property obviates the nee ruled to the contrary. In order to properly disregard these rulings it would be necessary to find that they were clearly wrong. We have no basis for such a finding on this record.


        Claimants point out that in earlier cases the Board discussed work assignment without considerin point out that in order for work assignment to another craft to be supportable it must be incidental to the duties of the other craft. Here, it is pointed out, the handling of mail is in no way incidental to the Carmen's duties. This truth, however, does not serve the assignment to the craft performing the work. Its basis lies in the holding of the myriad . of cases which state that the right to exclusive performance of work, based on practice, can only be found when, the practice shown is system-wide and exclusive.


        What Claimants are really arguing is that the Board has developed a rule of evidence which it is impossible to meet. Certainly it is a difficult, and perhaps is, an impossible burden. However, the Board has, quite correctly held times, that its prior decisions are entitled to great weight. The Board's decisions on this property, between these parties, have held this Scope rule to be "general" and required a showing of exclusive system-wide assignment in order to claim an exclusive right to work. That burden has not been met by claimants and a denial award is therefore required.


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


    I


.. . .-, : a
                    Award Number 19534 Page 3

                    Docket Number CL-18215


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

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD A4TUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: OCW

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of December 1972.