(Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Belt Railway Company of Chicago

1. The Carrier violated the Clerks' Agreement when it abolished General Clerk Position #24 and assigned the duties of the position to:



2. The Carrier shall now restore the General Clerk Position #24 and compensate J. Slowinski, the occupant of Train Clerk Position #26, the existing differential between $37.33 and $39.04 (Plus subsequent wage increases). Also the regularly successors with the understanding that the employes filling this position on an overtime basis will be compensated at the time and one-half rate, for the existing differential, effective June 16, 1972 and continuing so long as the violation continues or until such time as corrective measures are applied.

 3. The Carrier shall pay the time and one-half rate of $39.04 (plus subsequent wage increases) for each work day, Monday through Sunday, to the following named employes and/or successors, who were available, qualified and willing to perf







The claim is based on the allegations that agreement violations resulted from the abolishment of because some of the work of the position was distributed to non-contract employees (Trainmasters) an Position 926). The Claimant was the occupant of the lower-rated position when the abolishment occurred.


Prior to its abolishment the duties of General Clerk Position 424 had been as follows:

The General Clerk position also handled the original presentation of claims and the time claims were only spot checked by the supervisors.

 Immediately prior to the abolishment of position 424, the Carrier issued a June 12, 1972 instruc which provided as follows:









In these facts the parties have joined issue on whether the Carrier's actions violated Rule 1, Scope, Rule 56, Rating Positions, Rule 57, Preservation of Rates, and Rule 67, Adjustment of Rates. The Carrier specifically contends that the limited amount of work given to position #26 was not sufficient to warrant any adjustment in its rate of pay and (2) that the work now performed by the Trainmasters was not contractually reserved to the Cl
The facts do not permit any finding of violation in respect to Rules 56 and 57. Rule 56 prohibits the transfer of rates from one position to another, while Rule 57 new positions are established. No rate transfer is evidenced by the confronting facts and thus no vi since an allowance of the claimed differential between position #26 and #24 would constitute the transfer of a rate from one position to another, Rule 56 necessarily precludes the Board from approving this part of the claim. Similarly, no new position was established so Rule 57 cannot be said to be applicable. Rule 67 reads as follows:



The Carrier says that the Claimant's principal duties as a Crew Caller have not changed and that the work transferred to his position was not sufficient to warrant any adjustment in the rate of pay, and that, in any event, the rule requires the parties to negotiate a rate adjustment, a matter which is beyond the reach of the Board. Although the Carrier says that no higher rated work from position #24 was assigned to position 426, the Carrier does not dispute that some of the work of the former position was assigned to position 4k26. This assertion, being in the nature of an affirmitive defense, called for evidenciary support which the Carrier has not supplied in the record before the Board. Consequently, the record does not support this part of the Carrier's position, and to the contrary, the record facts obviously indicate that negotiation of a rate adjustment under Rule 67 is warranted. However, the Carrier is correct in asserting that


        this is a matter exclusively within the province of the parties and that the Board is not empowered to require the application of Rule 67. Award No. 19023, involving this same property. The Carrier is also correct in respect to its positio by the June 14 instructions. There can be no question about the validity of the Carrier's assertion that the Trainmasters, as Carrier officers, have the right and responsibility to check, approve, or disapprove any time slip from crews in their territory, The delegation of some or all of this work to a clerk does not terminate the Trainmaster's authority to approve or disapprove claims, nor does it constitute a relinquishment of the right to the work on the part of the Carrier. Indeed, the approval or disapproval of employee time claims is by its very nature a vital function in the managerial process and thus the Carrier may freely choose who shall perform this function on its behalf. There is no showing of record that the Carrier gave up this inherent managerial right, by agreement or otherwise, so this part of the c


        In view of the foregoing, the claim will be dismissed in part and denied in part.


        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record

              ane 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


              The claim is not supported by the record.


                            A W A R D


        The parts of the claim relating to Rules 56 and 57 and to the work performed by the Trainmasters is denied. The part of the claim relating to Rule 67 is dismissed.


                                NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                                By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST:,.

              Executive Secretary Al of


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of may 1975.


I