(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship ( Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and ( Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company ( - Coast Lines -

(a) Carrier violated the terms of the Agreement between the parties when, at its one-man station at Orange Cove, California it deprived the incumbent claimant, Agent-Telegrapher J. E. Claiborne of the work of waybilling carload shipment(s) it to employes at other stations on June 3, 10, 11, 17 and 24, 1972.

 (b) The Carrier shall compensate Claimant J. E. Claiborne and/ or his successor for one call payment (three hours pro rata) for June 3, 10, 11, 17 and 24, 1972.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant is the Agent-Telegrapher at a one-man station
 located at Orange Cove, California. His regular assign
 ment is Monday through Friday, 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. with Saturdays and
 Sundays as rest days. On each of the claim dates, all rest days of Claimant,
 Train 3322 picked up cars at Orange Cove. In each instance cars were picked
 up from customer perishable sheds in the close vicinity of Orange Cove
 (within a mile and a half), the conductors signed bills of lading, the cars
 were moved to Bakersfield, California where a clerical employe prepared the
 waybills. The parties agree that for many years the incumbent agent at
 Orange Cove had performed services in response to calls from shippers, on
 rest days on either a call or an overtime basis. On October 28, 1971, Car
 rier inaugurated a new procedure by bulletin as follows:









The issue in this dispute is not new; the parties have submitted exhaustive and comprehensive briefs and submissions and numerous awards have been cited. We shall not attempt to discuss all the nuances of the arguments in detail and shall confine the opinion to our conclusions and a concise exposition of our reasoning. We note from the submissions that a series of claims are being progressed, all at varying stages, on this or related issues.
that a virtually identical issue has been resolved, involving the same
 parties, in Award 46 of Public Law Board No. 132. It is also noted
 that Award 46 involves seven one-man agencies including that herein. While
 we agree with the principle enunciated by Carrier that this Board should not
 retry issues which have been resolved on a property by prior award of either
 a Public Law Board or this Board, the principle is not applicable to this
 case. The dispute in Award 46 of P.L. Board No. 132 involved the inaugura
 tion of "piggyback" service at each of the agencies named and relied on Award
 16495 for its conclusions. In both the cases above there was no evidence
 whatever that the work in question was performed at the one-man stations in
 question, and it was in fact performed by truck drivers (in Award 16945) as
 part of the new "piggyback" operation. The instant case is clearly disting
 uishable on the facts from the prior case on the property, and for this rea
 son we shall not dismiss the claim.

 Petitioner's argument is based principally on the "one-man agency" doctrine and on the work on .assigned day rule, which reads as follows:



Carrier's well stated arguments may be summarized as follows: 1) the picking up and signing of Bills of Lading by conductors did not violate the Agreement and more significantly was not included in the Statement of


        Claim which is confined only to work assigned "...to employes at other stations"; 2) the Scope Rule of the Agreement is general in type and confers no exclusivity with respect to the work involved in the claim; 3) the preparation of waybills is strictly clerical work, to which the agent has no enforceable right, and which may be performed by clerks at any location desired by Carrier; 4) the work on unassigned day rule reserves no work under the agree to establish that the work in question is reserved to Claimant; 6) the work in question related to shipments picked up at Shippers' perishable sheds and not at the agency and hence was not work done "at the agency" - the "one-man agency" awards are therefore inapplicable; 7) the "one-man agency" principle has been renounced in a number of awards; 8) the work on unassigned day Rule is only applicable when not only is it established that the work at issue is normally performed by Claimant but also other employes do not normally perform the work during their manage its property in the most economic and efficient manner possible, provided, as herein, that th cited a substantial number of Awards in support of its arguments.


        Several of the Awards cited by Carrier deserve comment. In Award 12991 there was not a one-man agency, Petitioner failed to establish that Claimant had been called on off-hours, and a clerk handled the work in the absence of the agent at the station, all distinguishable from the instant case. In Award 7078 we said:


              "In most of our Awards sustaining claims on the basis that station work at one man stations outside the Agent's assigned hours belongs to the Agent, there has been some prior practice of calling the Agent to perform the work involved. Here that is not the case so those Awards are not controlling."


        In Award 12147 it was found that the work at the agency was interchangeable between clerks and agents. In a closely similar case, Award 12395, the situation must be distinguished from that herein because that dispute was concerned with new work which when removed did not diminish the traditional work of the agent telegrapher. Admittedly there have been diverging Awards on a number of the issues raised by Carrier. It is our view that the facts of the particular case must be the decisive determinent.


        We concur with Carrier's argument with respect to the activities of the conductors; the Statement of Claim does not encompass their work in this dispute. We agree that the Scope Rule of the Agreement is general and confers no exclusivity; however we do not find that exclusivity is the determining factor in this di the preparation of waybills is clerical work, it is obviously a part of Claimant's regular work assignment. We also concur in Carrier's observations


l
                        Award Number 20635 Page 4

                        Docket Number CL-20671


        that the work in question is not exclusively reserved to Claimant (as that term is generally used) nor does Article III Section 14 supra reserve any work. We disagree with Carrier's argument with respect to the work not being accomplished "at the agency"; the sheds in question and the sidings of the various shippers are all within 1~ miles of the station itself and there is no basis for now considering those loci separate from the agency. We also take issue with Carrier with respect to the "one-man agency" doctrine; that principle, first test of time effectively with only minor deviations (Award 12530); it is well stated, as reiteration in Award 16951, and we do not deny the well established precedency in this dispute.


        There is no dispute in this case that Claimant performs the work in question Monday through Friday as part of his normal activity; furthermore, in the past he had be work, as required. As there is no evidence in the record that an unassigned employe was available for the assignments in question, Claimant should have been called in accordance with Article III Section 14 supra. As we said in Award 18998 "...in the circumstances of this case reliance by Carrier on the exclusivity concept is misplaced". Also see Awards 19267, 20556 and 14071 among many others.


                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 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 Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and


                That the Agreement was violated.


                            A W A R D


                Claim sustained.


                                NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                                By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: ~· W

        Executive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of March 1975.


a.