(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, ( Express and Station Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company

1. The Carrier violated the rules of the effective Clerks' Agreement particularly the Memorandum of Wednesday, November 8, 1972, it required and/or permitted m employe not covered by the scope of the governing agreement to perform work covered by the scope thereof.

 2. The Carrier shall nor be required to compensate Input/Output Technician J. Cummings eight (8) hours' pay at the time and one-half rate of an Input/Output Technician's position for Wednesday, November 8, 1972.

 OPINION OF HOARD: This claim is one of four (4) similar claims involving
 the use by non-clerical supervisory personnel of certain
 Cathode Ray Tube teleprocessing devices (RMS-3-SCR Output Display Modules
 and 2260 Scope Machines) which are an integral part of Carrier's computer
 ized Car Control System. The display consoles consist of a keyboard and a
 television-like screen and apparently are similar to those used by airline
 ticket and reaexvation agents. The equipment at issue is used both
 for "Input" (placing information into or changing information already in
 the system) and "Output" (retrieving information from or making inquiries
 of the system). Each of the four (4) related claims (Dockets 20792, 20793,
 20794 and 20795) involves Organization objections to a supervisor "retrieving"
 information from the system or making "inquiries" of the computer by using
 the display console keyboard together with certain "output" forms. In
 addition, the instant claim (Docket 20792) involves the organization's
 assertion that a supervisor used an "input" form to change or revise data
 in the system. Except for the factual dispute in the first claim, and the
 different personnel and dates of the claims, there is little or no controversy
 on the record relative to the facts out of which the disputes arose. Each of
 the parties presented essentially identical respective positions and argu
 ments for each of the four (4) cases and the dockets were argued concurrently
 before our Hoard by mutual stipulation. Accordingly, we shall set forth
 herein, but not in such detail in each of the related Awards, the relevant
 facts and Agreement citations common to each case.

 At issue in each of these cases is the interpretation and application of certain provisions of the C


evidence relative to the bargaining history of this Agreement. From the undisputed record it appears that Carrier sometime in the early 1950's implemented an IBM punch-card system of car control known an Unit Car Record System. Thereafter, by letter dated March 17, 1969 Carrier notified the organization, in accordance with the February 7, 1965 Job Stabilization Agreement, of Carrier's intention to establish a new computerized information and car control system invited a conference for the purpose of reaching an agreement. Among the items listed was one Item 6 which is of special significance in the instant disputes. In item 6 Carrier proposed the following:

Negotiations commenced on or about April 16, 1969 for an implementing agreement and the parties consummated a Memorandum of Agreement on July 23, 1969. The instant dispute in large part concerns Section 7 of that Agreement which reads as follows:

The Scope Rule of the Clerks' Agreement referenced in Section 7 supra reads as follows:

              SCOPE Arm WOEM OF EMPLOYES AFFECTED


        (A) These rules shall govern the hours of service and working conditions of all employes engaged in the work of the craft or class of clerical, office, station and storehouse employees. Positions or work coming w of this agreement belong to the employes covered thereby and nothing in this agreement shall be construed to permit the removal of positions or work from the application of these rules, nor shall sty officer or employe not covered by this agreement be permitted to perform aqy clerical, office, station or storehouse work which is not incident to his regular duties.

                      Award Number 21050 Page 3

                      Docket Number Ch-20'/92


        "(B) Whenever any mechanical device used for handling, duplicating, recording, transcribing, transmitting or receiving written, typed, printed, graphic or vocal communications, reports or records, or any combination of these, within the same or between different cities, is utilized for the accomplishment of work heretofore performed by employee subject to the scope of this agreement, such mechanical devices shall be operated by employes covered by this agreement."


The Memorandum of Agreement of July 23, 1969 provided for a phased-in implementation of the new computerized Car Control System and established new positions of Input/Output Technician (I/0 Technician). Following execution of the July 23, 1969 Agreement the record indicates that Carrier bulletined and filled the IOT Jobs at a uniform rate of pay and listing the following principle duties:

        "To accept and review data from ail sources; operation of any teleprocessing device necessary for Input to or Output from the computer; disseminate information to any inquiring source and perform miscellaneous clerical duties as required.


        Must be qualified and efficient in the use of teleprocessing equipment for Input or Output to the computer; have working knowledge of codes and operating instructions for the car control and information system; be responsible for the teleprocessing equipment in their use; and be procedures to be used in the event of their malfunction or failure."


From the record before us it appears that almost immediately upon implementation of the Car Control 1969 disputes arose relative to nonclerical personnel using the display consoles. In its submission to our Board, Carrier cited a letter of February 15, 1972 in that connection as follows:
                "Subject: Miscellaneous Grievances - Elgin,

                Joliet and Eastern Railway Company


        Mr. N. W. Kopp,, Director of Labor Relations Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company P. 0. Box J Chicago, Illinois 60690


        Dear Sir:


        In conference on February 14, 1972, we discussed the following grievance cases and advised you that we would withdraw these cases from any further consideration with the distinct under-

                      Award Number 21050 Page 4

                      Docket Number CL-20792


        °standing that such withdrawals will not prejudice our contentions nor restrict the filing and h claims which pertain to the same or similar subjects:


              Our Case No. Carrier's Case No.


                1-1942 KC- 1-71

                1-1946 KC- 5-71

                J-2029 ZC-80-71


        However, the Carrier did agree that Section 7 of the July. 23, 1969 Memorandum of Agreement would be fully complied with in the future and that employes of other crafts as well as employes occupying partially or fully except officials would be instructed to refrain from operating all teleprocessing devices referred to in said Memorandum of Agreement for the accomplishment of work heretofore performed by employes subject to the scope of the basic agreement.


        If the foregoing correctly sets forth our understanding, please sign in the space provided and return a copy to me.


                                Yours truly,


                                WM. B. MURPHY Isl

                                General Chairman


        ELGIN, JOLIET AND EASTERN RAILWAY

        COMPANY


        N. W. KOPP /s/

        N. W. KOPP

        Director of Labor Relations "


The settlement of earlier claims notwithstanding, further disputes arose and the instant claim was filed on November 29, 1972 alleging that Trainmaster M. J. Msday operated a teleprocessing device (FM-3-SCR) Pram 5:15 p.m. to 6:40 p.m. on Wednesday , November 8, 1972 and used Forms 48, 61 (Output) and 15 (Input) to research old care and to delete several cars from the data in the system. Claimant J. P. Cummings is an Input/Output Technician, 7-day position with regularly assigned hours 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Friday through Tuesday, rest days Wednesday and Thursday. Thus, the disputed work was performed by the Trainmester on Claimant's rest day outside of regular hours. The claim alleges a violation of Section 7 sins and seeks eight (8) hours at the overtime rate per Rule 43. The claim was denied on January 3, 1973 in a letter reading in pertinent part as follows:
                      Award Humber 21050 fge 5

                      Docket Number CL-20792


        "


        Because of the lapse of time from the alleged incident and the receipt of clsim in my contact with Trainmaster Maday, he advised me that his recollection of the events of that particulw day might be somewhat hard to come by. However, Mr. Maday advised me that his knowledge of the use of Form 15 is very limited and he feels that even at this date he would not be sufficiently familiar with the form to have used it at that time. Insofar an his use of Forms 48 and 61 which are inquiry forms, it is this Carrier's position that inquiries can be made of the System by any qualified employee since the computer tapes and discs constitute company records which are not restricted to specific positions or employees in availability and/or usage. While Mr. Maday does not specifically recall using those formats on the date in question, if he did in truth use them, it would certainly fall within the course of his normal duties to ascertain locations of specific cars, etc,


        For the reasons stated above, I find no violation of the Agreement in this instance and your claim, an it is presented is respectfully declined."


Each of the parties asserts that the clear and unambiguous language of Section 7 supports their respective positions. Thus, the Organisation urges that the language of that Section reserves exclusively to employes covered by the Scope Rule of the Clerks' Agreement both input and output of information from the teleprocessing devices. On the other hand, Carrier insists that Section 7 of the Agreement of July 23, 1969 is identical in meaning and import to Item 6 proposed by Carrier for negotiation an March 17, 1969 supra. Thus, Carrier maintains that Section 7 gives to IOT employes exclusive claim only to the Irqat function and does not prohibit any other employe from receiving information directly from an Output device from the computer without intervention of the I/0 Technician. Thus, the issue before us is joined.

 Because of the phrase "When utilized for the performance of work heretofore performed by employes subject to the scope of the basic Agreement" each of the parties al practice. Carrier maintains that supervisory personnel traditionally have done "car tracing" as part of their duties and that, therefore, "inquiry" of the computer is nothing more than clerical work incidental to their supervisory duties. The Organization contradicts this position and maintains that clerical employes have the exclusive right by practice as well an
                      Award Number 21050 Page 6

                      Docket Number CL-20792


Agreement language to operate the mechanical devices used for "handling ....
 ,.transmitting or receiving . reports or records "

 Carrier resists the claims essentially on the grounds that manipulating the keyboard to call up car to flipping through IBM cards and 2) in any event is "incidental" clerical work and part of supervisory duties of car tracing. Moreover, Carrier insists that the parties mutually agreed by Section 7 that supervisors and other non-clerical employes could receive information directly from an output device from the computer without the intervention of an I/0 Technician. Upon close analysis o the Agreement we sae unable to accept this view.

 The record does suggest, as Carrier contends, that car tracing and response to customer and operating department inquiries, are appropriate supervisory responsibilities and have been performed by supervisors in the past. Hut that assertion does not reach the issue herein. The issue before us does not involve the supervisor's use of data and records in car tracing but rather the means by which the data is obtained by the supervisors. Neither the historical record nor the express language of the Agreement support Carrier's view that physical manipulation of the computer keyboard using an output form is incidental to a supervisor's regular duties. Such activity is precluded by the express terms of Rule 1(a) - Scope. Moreover, Section 7 reserves such operation of teleprocessing devices to employee under the Clerks' Agreement. Carrier's assertion that Section 7, in words or substance, incorporates its bargaining demand in Item 6 supra simply is not supported in this record. Indeed, a more logical and reasonable conclusion is to the contrary, J 7 as finally agreed upon represents a rejection of Carrier's bargaining position. The language of Section 7 is clear and unambiguous and we have no doubt that the Agreement precludes supervisors or employer other than those under the Clerks' Agreement from operating the te purposes.

 The record before us is persuasive that Trainmaater Kaday utilized the RMS-3-SCR for both Input and Output. The Organization's eyewitness testimony that he worked the keyboard and used Form 15 (Input) stands undenied and answered only by have been familiar enough with that form to have used it 0 and the claim that he used Forms 48 and 61 (Output) on the keyboard to retrieve data essentially stands admitted on this record. The work in question was performed on Claimant's rest da not contested by Carrier and appears appropriate in the circumstances. We shall sustain the claim.
                      Award Number 21050 Page 7

                      Docket Number CL-20792


        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employee 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 Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim sustained.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMEMT HOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive Secretary


        D ted at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of April 1976.