(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks - (Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Penn Central Company, New Haven Region

(a) Carrier violated the current Clerks' Agreement at New London, Connecticut, Freight Office when on November 1, 1967, it arbitrarily transferred clerical work belon for the purpose of establishing a new position subject to the terms of another labor agreement.
(b) The Carrier shall be required to return the disputed work to the scope of the Clerks' Agreement.

 (c) Clerk Mrs. G. C. Keeley and/or her successors shall be compensated $23.0854 per day commenci thereafter until Carrier corrects the violations contained herein.

 OPINTON OF BOARD: Petitioner relies on its Scope Rule. Examination of the
 Rule reveals it to be general in nature and in order to prevail a showing is required that the work in dispute - the portion of the duties of the General dark's position remaining after the abolishment of that position - was by custom anal practice exclusively reserved to Petitioner.

 The facts giving rise to the dispute are generally undisputed and are as follows: Carrier decided that the vacancy created by the retirement of the fully excepted Agent at New London, Conn. Freight Office cn September 30, 1967, should be filled under Carrier's agreement with TransportationCommunication employees Union which includes and Ticket" in its Sccpe Rule whereas Petitioner's Scope does not. On September 19, 1967 Carrier not who is the Claimant herein and is represented by the petitioner, that the position was abolished eff load. Said Clerk notificd CArri=r that she would not ~xerci;e her seniority rights to displace th^ junior Rate and Waybill Clerk also employed at the office but would cover vacation ; nd ; pa°e work .:.t the office. There was a delay in det°_rmin.- tha succP:sful apple=ant for the Agent's position. Thus,
                    Award Number 19570 Page 2

                    Docket Number CL-18300


upon the departure of the Agent on September 30, there remained at the office the General Clerk and the Rate and Waybill Clerk. During the month of October the Rate and Waybill Clerk acted as Agent and the General Clerk covered the Rate and Waybill Clerk's position. With the arrival of the new Agent on November 1, 1967 the General Clerk was furloughed and the Rate and Waybill Clerk resumed his duties. The General Clerk having lost her previously established seniority by declining to exercise her displacement rights acquired a new senioritv date of (October 2 while she filled in for the Rate and Waybill Clerk. It is undisputed that had she exercised her seniority she would have had displacement rights to the Rate and Waybill Clerk's position, a post that she did not want.

 Careful consideration of the record and the contentions of the parties reveals that the essence of the c.a:=c is that the Claim goes to the . fact that the work remaining after the abolishment of the General Clerk's position could not, in the vi··w of tlio ret.itioncr, be absorbed by the Agent. We disagree. Carrier violat,,l no agr^crmrnt rule when it ahr,li_shod the General Clerk's position. ci:~·7 to perFnrm, way .1hSorhe(I by the Agent. In this regard note is taken of Pule 1(b) which reads, in relevant part, as follows:

          "A 'position' is defined as an assignment for which work exists eight hours a day five days a week."


It is therefore clear that the small amount of work left was not sufficient to justify the maintenance of a "position".

 It is also clear from the record that Petitioner has not proved that the work involved was reserved exclusively to it.

 Carrier in compliance with its agreement with TCEiT recognized the right of that Organization to represent the new Agent at the location when it decided that said position would no longer be excepted from all collective agreements. As we have found that the Agent could absorb the work remaining in the General Clerk's positioner we must find no merit to Claim (a). Having found no merit to Claim (a) we likewise find no merit to Claims (b) and (c), noting that the absorption of the work by the Agent violated no schedule rule in Petitioner's agreement. (Award 14827).

 In view of the foregoing it is not necessary to rule on what we consider to be subsidiary contentions raised by the parties.

 TCEU was notified of the dispute and declined to make a submission to this Board.
                    Award Number 19570 Page 3

                    Docket Number CL-18300


        FT%nTN'C:S: 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 re pectively Carrier and E.^mloyes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, :.. .,proved June 7_1, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the .;isrute involved '..orcin; and

        That the A;recment has not been violated.


                    A W'A R D


        Claim; denied..


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


        ~x=ciitive Secretary


^t~.l ; C::ica~o, Illinois, this 30th day of January 1973.