(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 current Clerks' Agreement at Eugene, Oregon, when it required a Class 3 employe to perform work reserved to Class 1 employes, and,

 (b) The Pacific Fruit Express Company shall now be required to allow Mr. Leo E. Lee, Relief Shift Foreman and Agent, five hours and 20 minutes overtime rate at $4.78 per hour each date March 8, 22, 29, April 19 and May 10, 1972, and,

 (c) The Pacific Fruit Express Company shall now be required to allow Mr. B. R. Lee, Shift Foreman, an aggregate of fifty-three hours and twenty minutes overtime compensation at $4.78 per hour, involving several dates in March, April and May, 1972, hereinafter specified, Exhibit C; and,

 (d) The Pacific Fruit Express Company shall now be required to allow Mr. R. L. Stiles, Relief Shift Foreman, five hours and twenty minutes overtime compensation-at $4.78 per hour each date March 2, 9, 16, 23, 24 and May 18, 1972; and,

 (e) The Pacific Fruit Express Company shall now be required to allow Mr. P. W. Stahl, Shift Foreman, an aggregate of seventy hours overtime compensation at $4.78 per hou hereinafter specified, Exhibit E.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The claim of the Organization is that the Carrier violated
 the Agreement when it assigned a Machine Operator Foreman
 to inspect mechanical shipments, inspect and supervise icing and inspect and
 supervise heater service. The Organization further contends that this work
 should be done by a Clerk-Inspector.

 The Carrier supports its position by stating that the Agreement does not provide nor require that inspection of mechanical shipments is exclusively the work of Clerk-Inspector. The Carrier also contends that there is no prohibition against the use to perform the work of a lower rated position, that is, if the Carrier pays the higher rated employe his regular rate for performing the duties of the lower rated position, per Rule 18. Furthermore, the inspection performed by the


Machine Operator Foreman was incidental in frequency and constituted a minor part of his work, and finally, the supervision of icing and heater service is more normally done by a Machine Operator Foreman than a Clerk-Inspector. The Machine Operator Foreman, during the period in question, had more than seven (7) hours a shift dead time. The Carrier maintains that in the interests of economy and reason, such a person should be used for the disputed work in that the alternative would be to call in extra help to do fifteen (15) minutes! work.

 The position of the Employes is that the Carrier violated Rules 31 and 32 of the Agreement when it used an on-duty Class 3 employe to perform Class 1 work when senior Class 1 employes were available and willing to perform the duties and also Class 1 employes in the past.

 The Organization in presenting its claim assumes the burden of proof to sustain it. At no time on the property did the Organization offer conclusive evidence that the wo not prohibited by the Agreement; in fact, this Board has held on numerous occasions that classifications of work within an Agreement are not exclusive grants of work to each classification. Award 17421 (Goodman).

 The record on the property alleges that Rules 31 and 32 were violated. These Rules prescribe the work and are thus not relevant to the claim herein.

        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 jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.

                    Award Number 21586 Page 3

                    Docket Number CL-21380

                    A W A R D


        The Claim is denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD ~~s O&X~t~ By Order of Third Division


ATTEST;

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of June 1977.

 s