(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 when it failed to call employe C, Dominguez to vacancies on Clerk Inspector Position No. 38 January 8, 14, 28, 29 and 30, 1972 but, instead, required an on-duty Shift Foreman to perform the duties thereof in addition to those of his own assignment; and,

 (b) The Pacific Fruit Express Company shall now be required to compensate Mr. C. Dominguez for eight (8) hours at the time and one-half rate of Clerk Inspector Position No. 38 each date January 8, 14, 28, 29 and 30, 1972.

 OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute arose out of the Carrier's decision
 to blank the position of Clerk Inspector, Position 38,
 on the dates in question, when the incumbent of that position or his
 replacement (when the incumbent was on vacation) were off due to illness,
 and to perform certain inspection work by use of the Shift Foreman.

 The Organization contends a violation of Rule 31 which reads, in pertinent part, as follows:





                    Docket Number CL-21664


        "NOTE: Under the provisions of this rule, an employe may not be requested to suspend work and pay during his tour of duty to absorb overtime previously earned or in anticipation of overtime to be earned by him. It is not intended that an employe cross craft lines to assist another employe. It is the intention, however, that an emolove may be used to assist another employe during his tour of duty in the same office or location where he works and in the same seniority district without Penalty. An employe assisting another employe on a position paying a higher rate will receive the higher rate for time worked while assisting such employe, except that existing rules which provide for payment of the highest rate for entire tour of duty will continue in effect. An employe assisting another employe on a position paying the same or lower rate will not have his rate reduced." (Emphasis added)


It is the Organization's contention that the work by the Shift Foreman was not in keeping with the intent of Rule 31.

 The Carrier contends no rule restricts its authority to blank positions where such positions are not needed; such a judgment was made in the duties in question, according to the Carrier. The Carrier also points to an agreement dated March 21, 1940, in asserting the right of the Foreman to perform inspection work;
        "At the Los Angeles ice manufacturing plant there are three Class 3 positions (one on each shift) with title of Assistant Foreman, which pay a five cent differential per hour over that paid ice men, or 60(, per hour.


        The work of these positions will be changed to include some clerical and a small percentage of inspection work; however, this will vary from day to day, sometimes being less than four hours and other days being in excess of four hours."


It is one such position contemplated by the 1940 agreement that was occupied by the Foreman in this case. The number of inspections or the dates in cuestion we=a eaomerated by Carrier a..^_d descriced a3 .^1'Cn11.^?..l -- 3 cciitention not efiect'_f°..1J' rei~ted by the aganiza-~iea.
                    Award Number 21%29 Page 3

                    Docket Number CL-21664


Nothing has been adduced that denies to management the right to blank a position, specifically where a sufficient work force is considered present to perform the required duties; in addition, the agreement between the parties contemplates the Shift Foreman being required to perform certain inspection work. The inspection work referred to in the claim is considered properly within the Shift Foreman's jurisdiction.

        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

        The Agreement was not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim is denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: a,~V 6~o
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of February 1978.