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

(a) The Southern Pacific Company violated the current Clerks' Agreement at Dunsmuir, California, deliberately used Guaranteed Extra Board Clerk Mrs. P. W. Gilzean on positions for which she was admittedly not qualified; and,

 (b) The Southern Pacific Company shall now be required to make the following compensatory allowances.









OPINION OF BOARD: Mrs. P. W. Gilzean was a Guaranteed Extra Board employee
 who performed service in the Carrier's crew dispatcher's
 office during relevant times. The genesis of the dispute herein is the is
 suance of the following instructions by Carrier's Trainmaster:

Claimants contend that ariving at night for the purpose of calling or hauling crews is an integral and necessary element in the duties of a Crew Dispatcher. They asse go fitness or ability to merit her assignment to the job of Crew Dispatcher,

 Claimants assert that outside calling duties have traditionally been performed by employees serving on the train board. Thus, they maintain, on the occasions that C'411zean served .:r. t',ie train board the more senior engine board employees were imposed upon to tha extent that they were required to perform the outside work that Gilzean should have performed. This appears to be the principal complaint of organ as an assertion that Gilzean was u:.qualified to perform the duties of Train Crew Dispatcher and Claimants should Nave been assigned in her stead. There is a most confusing inconsistency in ti:e position of Claimants, however, in that they claim that they should have been assigned in lieu of Gilzean even during times that Gilzean served on the engine board. The strain of Claimants' argument is that only the dispatcher on the train board is obligated to perform the outside work. It would appear then that it would follow that being able to perform the outside duties was not a requirement for service on the engine board.

 The position of Carrier is no more clear or consistent than Claimants'. Essentially, Carrier maintains that engine board employees are not free of the responsibility to perform outside work. Indeed, the main thrust of Carrier's argument is that all Crew Dispatchers -- train board or engine board -- are required to perform oiic is how it follows from the foregoing assertion that Gilzean was properly exempted from that requirement.
                  Docket Humber CL-18665


        FINDIMS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board# upon the whole raeord and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier end 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 Baerd has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

 Claimants did not clearly establish the nature of the violation claimed or the relief requested and did not prove that Carrier violated the Agreement.

                        A W A E D


        Claims denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJtIS%79NT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, tbis 31st day of October 1973_