NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 Award Number 20147
 ' THIRD DIVISION Docket Number CL-20199

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

1. Carrier violated Rule 1, section (b) among others of the current working rules agreement effective September 1, 1949 and as amended, when it assigned, a Supervisor, not covered by the Rules agreement to run monthly reports on "Unit Record" equipment and subsequently on "Computer" equipment.

 2. Carrier shall pay Mr. Gerald Stillman, clerk Operator, Data Processing Section, General Offic $4.1365 Per Hour, total $66.18.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was hired September 22, 1969 as a Machine Operator
 in the Data Processing Section of Carrier; Carrier alleges
 that it told him at the time of hire that it was evaluating computerization and
 he would not be guaranteed more than twelve months work. He was finally termin
 ated, due to computerization, on May 24, 1972. Carrier secured a computer about
 December 1, 1971 and also hired a Programmer-Analyst at about the same time.
 Starting in January 1972 the Programmer-Analyst engaged in writing, testing and
 "debugging" programs for the computer; reports were run on a parallel basis in
 the Data Processing Section and by the Programmer during this break-in and re
 finement period. At the same time, the Senior Machine Operator from the Section
 was being sent to a training program in New York to become a "Computer Operator".
 The Claim arises from the allegation that in February 1972 certain reports which
 had been previously handled by the Data Processing Section were now being accom
 plished by the Programer for both study and normal use.





.J


        "Rule 41


        (b) When new machines, office appliances or devices are adopted in the performance of work covered by this agreement, employes covered by this agreement shall be given preference for such employment in accordance with seniority and will be fully instructed in the operation of such new machines or devices without causing employes to lose rest or time."


First, with respect to Rule 41(b), there is no evidence whatever in the record to support the bare assertion that Carrier has violated this rule. Petitioner asserts that Cl the fact that a more senior clerk, Assistant Manager R.J. Cyr, was sent to school to become a Computer Operator in order to operate the new equipment. It should be noted that the operation of the computer by this retrained employee retained the work within the Scope of the Agreement, without the employment of replacement personnel.

 An examination of the Claim raised on the property and progressed to the highest officer of Carrier reveals that this was a continuing Claim, had no specific dates as to the work or any other details. Nowhere on the property is there any indication of how much time the reports discussed took Claimant, or if any losses accrued to him or any other employees as a result of the alleged change. It must then be noted that the Claim presented to this Board is not a continuing Claim, also contains no date of specific violation, and alleges that Carrier "...assigned a Supervisor, not covered by the Rules agreement to run monthly reports on 4Tnit Record' equipment and subsequently on 'Computer' equipment." A review of the record indicates no evidence of a supervisor (or any other non-scope employe) operating Unit Record equipment while the record is equally clear that the Programmes, who was not covered by the Agreement, did operate the computer during the break-in-period.

 Petitioner's case is fatally flawed in that: the dates of the alleged , violation are not set forth (See Awards 18040, 12366, and 19477); there is substantial variation bet Board; and finally there is no evidence that any work was removed from the Scope of the Agreement.

 1
              Award Number 20147 Page

              Docket Number CL-20199


        FTNDT~!f;S: The Third Divisimi of the Adjuntmcnt 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 respectively Carrier and Emplcycs the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; an
        That the Claim be dismissed.


                  A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                      NATIONAL RAII.D OAT) AD.TTT.RTT1FNT RnARn

                      By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST:_a_A/' Executive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of February 1974.