(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, ( Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Chicago, West Rull..roan & Southern ( Railroad Company

1. The Carrier violated and continues to violate the provisions of the effective Agreement between the parties when it fails and refuses to fill Job No. 13 -- Storekeeper Clerk with employes covered by the scope of our Agreement, but rather, requires and/or permits an employe outside the scope of our Agreement to perform all necessary work of that position;

 2. The Carrier shall now compensate the following named claimants for eight (8) hours' pay at the time and one-half rate for each and every day listed below, commencing on October 1, 1974, and continuing for each and every day thereafter that a like violation occurs:




OPINICV OF BOARD: On or about October 1, 1974 the position of
 Storekeeper Clerk became vacant. Carrier
 bulletined this vacant position on November 1, 1974, but no bids were
 received and no award of the position was issued. The position was
 filled briefly by an employe of the Organization in January 1975.
 Effective May 1, 1975 the position was combined with that of Chief
 Clerk. This claim is made on behalf of three Claimants who contend
 they should have been called on their rest days on an overtime basis,
 and assert that Carrier violated the Agreement when it used the
 Roundhouse Foreman to perform the work.


There are numerous assertions,denials, allegations and counterallegations in the ex parte submis parties, but the only evidence this Board can consider is that which was presented and handled on the property. In this record it consists of the following:

        1. A bulletin dated November 1, 1974 advertising the position.


        2. A letter dated January 13, 1975 from Carrier's General Freight Agent to the Organization's Local Chairman as follows:


              "Reference is made to your letter dated November 25, 1974, claiming that position of Storekeeper has been worked by persons other than those falling within the Scope of the Current Working agreement.


              We cannot agree with your contention that there is a violation of rules and regulations outlined in the Working Agreement.


              The position in question has been advertised numerous times and in each instance, clerk would bid off returning to his old assignment, leading us to believe that no one was interested in working the position outlined in your claim. Latest bulletin 1105 dated November 1, 1974, no bids received.


              It appears now, we have a large group that are willing to work the assignment as Storekeeper, if so, why not contact me and we can make arrangements to make arrangements to award the job to whoever wants it.


              Please be advised we are respectfully declining your claim in your letter dated November 25, 1974."


3. A letter dated March 25, 1975 from Carrier's

President to the Organization's General Chairman as follows:

                  Award Number 21882 Page
                  3

                  Docket Number CL-21379


              "In your Mhrch 4th letter you informed us that you were appealing claims in behalf of three named individuals commencing on October 1, 1974 and claimed at the overtime rate on individuals' rest days.


              I am sure you have received copy of Mr. Slowinski's letter dated January 13, 1975 addressed to Mr. R. Adametz wherein he explained the circumstances and declined the claims. I am enclosing a copy of that letter for your ready reference and advising you that I uphold his declination."


        4. A form letter dated January 24, 1975 by an employe covered by the Organization's agreement applying for the Storekeeper position.


On the state of this evidence it is virtually impossible to ascertain the essential facts necess For example: What was the nature of the work in fact performed by an employe not covered by the agreement? How many hours per day did such work in fact entail?

 This Board is not at liberty to engage in conjecture or supposition; nor is it allowed to resolve a dispute by simply weighing the merits of the parties' self-serving and conflicting versions appearing for the first time in their submissions.

 Therefore, on the basis of this record the Board has no alternative but to deny the claim.

        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 21882 Page 4

                  Docket Number CL-21379


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

        The Agreement was not violated.


                  A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                        NATICGAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of January 1978.