(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Western Pacific Railroad Company




and Mr. J. S. Dennis to break-in on positions without compensation after having
accepted their displacements to said positions. _

2. Miss J. D. Everson shall be allowed eight hours pay for each date of March 23 and 24, 1971 at Steno-Clerk rate and Mr. J. S. Dennis be allowed eight hours pay for each date February 18, 19, 20 and 22, 1971, at the rate of Yard Checker, South Sacramento.

OPINION OF BOARD: The claim herein involved covers two claimants, one a
Steno-Clerk and the other a Yard Clerk. However, the factual situation in both instances are identical so that the two disputes were combined and handled as such by the parties. :ach employee exercised their displacement rights by declaring their intention to displace a junior employee on each of the positions referred to above. In neither instance were the claimants qualified to displace on the position of choice and they were each therefore notified by Carrier that it would be necessary for them to qualify themselves before their displacements could be accepted. The subject claim is for compens
Prior to considering the merits of the combined claim it is necessary that we make a determination as to Carrier allegation that the claim is procedurally defective becau
A review of the record of the handling on the property shows that the claim was progressed on the grounds that past practice on this property was of sufficient degree to warrant payment to claimants while breaking-in. Additionally, in his letter of appeal to the Carrier's highest officer designated to receive such ap that the Carrier will reconsider this claim in the light of fairness and
equity " The General Chairman also stated in his submission to this Board,
" ....it is true that there is no rule which requires the Carrier to compen-
sate an employee for breaking-in, "



It is noted, however, that part 1 of the claim as submitted to this Division states as follows:



In its rebuttal to Petitioner's Ex Parte submission the Carrier stated:





Neither of the foregoing Carrier statements were challenged by Petitioner, no Organization rebuttal having been submitted.

After a thorough review of the record, it is readily apparent that the claim as submitted to the Board substantially differs from the claim as handled on the property; the difference is not a minimal deviation. Therefore, we will sustain the o and dismiss the claim.







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;

                    Docket Number CL-19974


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

      That the claim be dismissed for reason stated in the Opinion.


                      A WAR D


      Claim dismissed.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
      Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of September 1973,