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

(a) The Pacific Fruit Express Company violated the Agreement when it required and/or permitted employes of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company, not covered there Indio, California, including the setting and regulating of thermostats, which work has been historically and traditionally performed exclusively by Agreementcovered employes; and
(b) The Pacific Fruit Express Company shall now be required to allow Mr. P. A. Stenrose eight (8) hours' compensation at rate of Agent Clerk E-2, Coachella Valley, $36.51 per day, beginning May 1, 1971, and continuing each day thereafter while the violation set forth in paragraph (a) continues.

 )PINION OF BOARD: This Scope Claim is based on the allegation that the work of
 inspecting the Carrier's refrigerator cars at Indio, Coach
 ella Valley, California, has historically and exclusively been performed by this
 Carrier's clerical force, and that when the Carrier established a position of
 Agent-Clerk at Indio on May 21, 1971, the Carrier, instead of assigning such work
 to the incumbent thereof, permitted such work to continue to be done by employes
 of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company.

 The Carrier's principal defense is that no Scope violation has occurred because the disputed work did not belong to this Carrier, but instead, was the work of (the Southern Pacific Transportation Company.

 The record shows without contradiction that, at least since 1969, this Carrier has established a seasonal Agent-Clerk position in Coachella Valley, beginning in May or Jun was established on June 2 and terminated on July 9. During the remainder of the year (i.e., other than the period of the seasonal agency), any of the disputed work required to be performed would be performed by railroad employes of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company. The record also shows without contradiction that this Carri been signatories since 1906 to a "Protective Service Contract", under which this


Carrier provides services regarding perishable shipments on the railroad of the Southern Pacific Company.

 In these facts the Employes of this Carrier have no agreement right to any work performed by employes of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company. All of the work co property of the Southern Pacific Company belongs to such company and it can delegate as much or as little of such work to the herein Carrier as it may decide. In short, since the herein Carrier does not own and control the work, it cannot be faulted because it does not prohibit the owner of the work, the Southern Pacific, from having some of the work performed by its own employes. For a similar holding, see Third Division Award No. 7194. The claim will be denied.



That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectfully 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



        Claim denied.

                            D


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of March 1976.