(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and .Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Robert. W. Blanchette, Richard C. Bond and John H. ( McArthur, Trustees of the Property of ( Pem Central Transportation Company, Debtor

(a) The Carrier violated the Rules Agreement, effective February 1, 1968 particularly the Scope Rule, Rule .3-C-2 (a) (1) and the Extra List Agreement, by assigning clerical duties to those not covered by the Agreement, such as Train and Engine Crews preparing, verifying the reporting and release time of time cards. The Carrier also assigned Group One work to a Group Two employe.

 (b) W. R. Souders and all others affected by the improper abolishment of Position G-342 each be allo pay for October 12, 1971 and continue for each consecutive date that the Carrier fails to correct th
OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute is concerned with the aftermath of the abol
 ishment of Position G-342 at Shire Oaks, Pennsylvania.
 That position, in which Claimant was the incumbent, was the third shift Crew
 Dispatcher position. All crew dispatching work was transferred, effective
 October 12, 1971 to West Brownsville, Pa. by transferring two of the four crew
 dispatching positions and abolishing the remaining two, including that at
 issue. As of October 12, 1971 there were four remaining positions at Shire
 Oaks: one Flexowriter Operator and three Group 1 Extra List assignments. The
 Extra List Assignments were moved to West Brownsville effective October 25,
 1971 and the Flexowriter position was moved to Peters Creek effective Novem
 ber 23, 1971 leaving no Group 1 clerical positions at Shire Oaks. It is gen
 erally agreed that effective October 12, 1971 some of the functions of the
 Position G-342 were assigned to and. performed by a Group 2 Extra List employe
 and some were performed by conductors and engineers.







"RULE 3-C-2-ASSIGNMENT OF WORK

 (a) When a position covered by this Agreement is abolished, the work previously assigned to such remains to be performed will be assigned in accordance with the following:







(b) Where the work of an abolished position is assigned to employes coming under the provisions when it is practicable to do so, will be assigned to a position or positions with rates equal to or in excess of the position abolished.

 (c) In the event the work of an abolished position is assigned to a Group 1 position or positions, the rate of which is less than the rate of the position abolished:

                  Docket Number CL-21178


              will be made effective as of the date the work is assigned to the position or positions studied, with the understanding that this'will not modify or in .any way affect the established.practice of applying rates determined by questionnaire or requestionnaire study effective as of the date covered by such studies, except when the study is made under the circumstances specified herein.


              (2) Where agreement covering the questionnaire method of determining rates of pay for Group 1 employes is not in effect a study.may be made of the position or positions to which the work of the abolished positi assigned for the purpose of determining the proper rate of such position or positions, based on the comparability of the assigned duties thereof to the duties of other established positions in the same seniority district and the application of the rate or rates established on the basis of such study will be effective as of the date the work is assigned to the position or positions involved.


        (d) In the event the work of an abolished position is assigned to a Group 2 position, the rate of which is less than the rate of the the position abolished, a study may be made of the position to which the work of the abolished position is assigned for the purpose of determining the proper rate of such position. The application of the rate established on the basis of such study will be effective as of the date the work is assigned to the position."


Petitioner's position is grounded on two distinct premises: On October 12 there were remaining G 3-C-2 (a); the work of preparing, checking and approving E & T service time cards had always been exclusively the work of Group 1 employes, specifically Crew Dispatchers at Shire Oaks. As corollary arguments it is alleged that the exclusivity theory does not apply to situations involving residual duties remaining from abolished positions and further that the Extra List Assignments constituted "positions" under the Agreement. Petitioner alleges an additional violation in that a Group 2 employe from the Extra List at Shire Oaks was required to perform the ot
With respect to the facts, Carrier points out that after October 12 there were no clerical positions in existence at Shire Oaks on the third shift and hence no covered employes who could have performed the work under any circumstances. Further, th regular clerical positions on any trick in any capacity left at the location.
                  Award Number 21324 Page 4

                  Docket Number CL-21178


Carrier also asserts, and it is not rebutted, that the only work assumed by train crew personnel after position G-342 was abolished was the work of verifying the reporting and relieving times on train and engine service time cards. Carrier asserts that this type of work is not performed exclusively by clerks but by other classes of employes, primarily conductors and engineers, throughout the syste
There are many peripheral issues and a host of authorities cited by both parties in the arguments with respect to this dispute. However, the central and controlling question is whether Carrier applied Rule 3-C-2 properly. It is noted also, t less than four hours of work from position G-342 remained at the location after the position was abolished (Carrier claims that it was less than an hour a day). From this latter fact; it is evident that such work could indeed be combined with the work of a Class 2 position under the terms of the Scope Rule (that portion cited above).

 Contrary to Petitioner's position, the question of exclusivity is relevant to this dispute, particularly since it was raised by Petitioner. It suffices to observe that Petitioner made no attempt to establish systemwide exclusivity with respect cards) but asserted point exclusivity. This we cannot accept based on long established principle.

 The issue herein has surfaced on this property under these same Rules on many previous occasions and there are a host of awards relating to the problem. Under the preponderant opinion expressed by this Board Rule 3-C-2 was intended to preserve work which accrued to the employes covered by the Agreement but did not purport to grant work to the Organization's which had not been previously the exclusive work of clerks (see Awards 11963, 13159, 13921 and many others). This principle should be considered stare decisis. Since Petitioner has not established the exclusive right to the work performed by the train crew personnel and the remaining work performed by the Class 2 employe is minimal and permitted by the Agreement, the Claim must therefore be denied.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and 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;
                  Award Number 21324 Page 5

                  Docket Number CL-21178


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

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD ezjw, 4q&44,000 By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary'


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