(a) Carrier violated the rules of the current Clerks' Agreement at Richmond, California commencing on or about April 23, 1973, and continuing each day until the wor is returned to employee under the Clerks' Agreement, and

 (b) Mr. H. W. Perking and/or the successor shall be compensated eight hours pay at time and one-half at the Head Car Clerk rate April 23, 1973, and continuing each day so long as the Quality Control Supervisor is allowed to perform this clerical work as a result of such violation of Agreement rules.

 OPINION 0f BOARD: This dispute involves the use of a teletype machine by
 a Quality Control Supervisor in an effort to trace the
 location of certain cars. The Claim was filed as a continuing claim, origi
 nating in an incident on April 23, 1973.

 On January 2, 1970 Carrier instituted a new teletype system the ASR 35 to effect modern teleprocessing of information as part of a "Real Time Data System". All information that is added to the system, which is centered at the main computer in Topeka, Kansas, is done by clerical personnel. Carrier has operated teletype machines on its property since 1927. Carrier stated, without denial by the Organization, that supervisors and other exempt personnel had operated the new ASR 35 machines for three and one-half years, prior to the claim, in the presence of clerical employee, without complaint. The Quality Control Supervisor had made similar use of the equipment on occasion prior to April 23, 1973.

 Both parties to this dispute object to new data being presented to this Board, in conjunction with the submissions, which had not been handled on the property. The positions are well taken in accordance with well established principles; accord in the resolution of this dispute.


Petitioner alleges a violation of the Agreement in that the work of transmitting and receiving car tracer messages was reserved to the telegraphers on this property is now reserved to the Clerk's craft by virtue of the Telegraphers' and Clerks' separate scope rules being combined into a single scope rule as of the consolidation of the Agreements on November 1, 1972. It is argued further that the work of operating teletype machines on this property has been performed by either telegraphers or clerks to the exclusion of all others since 1927. In support of this last point, Petitioner relies on a series of Awards from this Hoard (Awards 8538, 9005, 10683 and 10776 among others). Petitioner also argues that the work of tracing cars is not directly an integral part of the Quality Control Supervisor's regular duties. Finally, it is contended that the violation herein involves a continuing claim, as contemplated by Article V, Section 2 of the 1954 Agreement.

 Carrier contends that the Scope Rule on this property is general in nature and provides, furthermore, that:

Carrier argues that prior to the installation of the ASR 35 teletype system, anyone could make inquiries by telephone as to the location of cars and there never was a complaint from the Clerks' Organization. The current system of using the ASR 35 teletype machine does not add any information to the computer. Carrier asserts that the use of the ASR 35, since the first day of installation in 1970, by supervisors including the Quality Control Supervisor herein, has been linked to and an integral part of their regular duties. Carrier also argues that by acquiescence for three and one-half years, the claim is not timely and should be barred. Carrier also argues that there has not been and cannot be any evidence that the use of this equipment or work has been historically, customarily and exclusively performed by the craft on a sys
This Claim fails on one major ground. Petitioner has never established any facts to prove that the w by the Quality Control Supervisor was not an integral part of his regular duties and hence permissible under the Scope Rule Supra. Carrier has presented data affirmative to i provided nothing of substance. We have long held that assertion does not take the place of evidence. In view of this conclusion, we do not deem it necessary to deal with the other issues and arguments raised. The Claim must be denied.






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



        Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: tz~V·

        rcecuT tive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of October 1976.