( Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood

(1) Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties November 4, 11, 22, 23, 25, December 2, 6, 9, 16 and 23, 1973, when it permitted or required train service employees to perform duties which for many years by custom, practice and tradition have been performed by Agent and Clerk-Operat
(2) Carrier shall be required to compensate Clerk-Operator J. T. Meares a two (2) hour call November 4, 11, 23, 25, December 2, 6, 9, 16 and 23, 1973, and a three (3) hour call November 22, 1973, at time and one-half the pro rata rate for the violation aforesaid.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Aberdeen, North Carolina is an interchange point
 between the Seaboard Coast Line and the Aberdeen
 and Rockfish Railroad Company. When cars were interchanged at a tuna
 when Claimant was not on duty she was called so that she could stamp
 the waybills and deliver them to the A & R by placing them in the des
 ignated box or slot and complete the required interchange report.
 Carrier wished to avoid what it considered excessive calls at Aber
 deen and instituted a procedure there which was in effect at other
 points on the road.

 Instead of having Claimant called in to stamp the waybills it had them stamped by BRAC employees at other points. The conductor delivered them to the A & R by placing them in the designated slot. Then when Claimant returned to duty she completed the interchange report and delivered it to the A & work of significance and the only change in Claimant's duties with respect to it is the time at whic regularly assigned hours instead of being called in to complete it. No violation of the Agreement exists, nor has one been alleged, because of that change in Claimant's assignment. Two other changes have taken place. BRAC employees at other locations stamp the waybills. Aside

 1 14


from the fact that there is no significant work or time involved, the task is performed by covered employees. The key point, however, is the fact that the claim was filed because of work performed by train service employees and the stamping in the place at which the stamp is applied under the given facts and circumstances. A more serious question is raised by the assignment of the conductor to deliver the waybills to the A & R. Here the work involved is both incidental an which the record shows is performed by conductors at other points on the road. Based on the above considerations, the Board finds that Carrier did not violate the Agreem that Claimant uses the Seaboard Coast Line copies of the documents to complete the interchange report and that she still delivers it to the A & R.

 The change is procedural rather than substantive. No covered work has been removed.from employee Claimant still performs the actual interchange work. The claim is for work performed by train service employees and the record shows that the only work performed by them was placing the waybills in the A & R's mail slot instead of leaving them at the Seaboard Coast Line office. Based on the considerations discussed above, the claim is denied.



That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

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








ATTEST:
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of January 1976.