(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 ( Penn Central Transportation Company, Debtor

(a) Carrier violated the Rules Agreement effective February 1, 1968, particularly 3-C-2 (a) (1), the Scope Rule and the Extra List Agreement, when the Carrier abolished Position G-74 located at Shire Oaks, September 22, 1971 and failed to properly assign the duties of the abolished position.

 (b) G. J. Gligonic, J. J. Jacob and E. K. Rinko and a?`_ others affected by the improper abolishment pay of eight (8) hours at the appropriate pro rata rate of pay for September 24, 1971 and to continue for each consecutive date that the violation exists.

 OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute, a companion case to the matter in Award No.
 21324, deals with the abolishing of certain clerical
 positions and transfer of work from Shire Oaks, Pennsylvania starting on Sep
 tember 22, 1971. In this dispute. we are concerned with the results of the
 abolishing of Position G-74, Flexawriter, on September 22, 1971. Petitioner
 alleges violations of the Scope Aule, Rule 3-C-2 (a) (1) and the Extra List
 Agreement.

 The Carrier abolished the two Flexowriter positions, G-74 and G-67 at Shire Oaks and states that the work remaining was assigned to Flexowriter Position G-73 at the location. That last position was transferred to another location on November 22, 1971. The ultimate issue to be decided is whether Carrier reassigned residual duties of position G-74 in violation of the Agreement.

 Petitioner asserts that Carrier assigned work included in the duties of abolished position G-74 to employes of other crafts (engineers and conductors) and also to the Incumbent of the Grasp 2 extra list position.
A study of the record of the dispute, in particular the handling on the property, persuades us that this Claim lacks merit. First, and moat important, regardless of the discrepancies in dates pointed to by the C$rrier, we can find no evidence indicating the specific functions of the Flexowriter position which were allegedly improperly assigned after the position was abolished. Indeed the Petit substantively significant evidence, the same document herein as was presented in Award No. 21324, which in that dispute was related to the crew dispatcher's functions. Hence we m


burden of proof in this dispute. Additionally, it must be noted that even if Petitioner had presented adequate evidence in support of its contentions, there is no merit to the argument that Carrier is precluded from assigning Group 1 work to Group 2 personnel. That issue has been dealt with in a number of awards on this property involving this Organization. In Award 12365, involving the same parties and agreement language, we said:

        "Petitioner's claim is based on the fact that the remaining duties of the abolished position were assigned in part to a Group 1 clerical position and in part to a Group 2 Baggageman position remaining in existance at the location involved. Petitioner alleges that Rule 3-B-1 is viol abolished Group 2 position is assigned to a Group 1 position on the basis that this Rule prohibits the crossing of seniority lines.


        We feel that the Petitioner has failed to show that the Agreement prohibits the Carrier from crossin from Group 1 to Group 2 and vice versa."


Finally, if we would, arguendo, reach that issue, the work performed by the train crew personnel with respect to time cards is wholly appropriate, as we found in Award No. 21324. Based on the entire record, and for the reasons indicated heretofore, the
        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;

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

        That the Agreement was not violated. ~./


                    A W A R' D

                                              2 2 1976


        Claim denied. J ,! BER~ P

        ®s

        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: ~~
 Executive Secretary

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