(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and
 ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
 ( Express and Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Norfolk and Western Railway Company

1. Carrier is violating the Agreement between the parties when they allow or permit Section Laborer R. E. Knight to perform work reserved to employes covered by the Clerical Agreement.

 2. As a consequence of the above-stated violation Carrier shall now be required to compensate the senior available or otherwise senior furloughed employee from Seniority District No. 43 (senior available to mean the employee who is regularly assigned wishing same). This pay to be based on the pro rata rate of pay at the applicable Extra Force Timekeeper's rate of pay. This pa 1977, and continue for eight (8) hours each work date based on a work week of Monday through Friday until the violation is discontinued or the position placed under the Clerical Agreement and placed on the Bulletin Board for bid from employes falling under the clerical agreement.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The Organization asserts that on March 28, 1977, a
 section laborer was assigned to the position of time
 keeper for Maintenance of Way Employes at Crewe, Virginia, and as such,
 he performed that function for 250 Maintenance of Way Employes.

 The Organization asserts that said activity violates the Scope Rule of the agreement, as well as certain other provisions; and it asserts that - in addition to the merits of the dispute - the Carrier failed to issue a reply within a contractually provided sixty day period so that as a procedural matter, the Organization is entitled to relief.

 The Carrier argues that the work performed by the section laborer actually commenced in November of 1975, and at that time he merely commenced preparing reports which were formerly prepared by the individual Maintenance of Way Employes in each-group. Further, the Carrier contends
 Award Number 22788 Page 2
 Docket Number CL-22666

 that the Organization failed to submit a claim within the contractually provided time limits which start to run from the date of the occurrence upon which the claim is based.

 Concerning our review of the various procedural assertions of the parties, we have turned our attention to Awards 20520 and 22508, both of which disposed of disputes between these same parties.

 Thus, based upon our review of this record and the precedent established by the two cited Awards as relates to these parties, we are inclined to find that the Organization has sustained its position that the claim was not denied in a timely fashion and, further, pursuant to the cited Awards,.we will sustain the claim up through and including the date that the Board finds it was denied, i.e., September 29, 1977.

 Concerning the period of time thereafter, we have reviewed the record at length, but we are unable to find that the Organization has presented to us sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there was a violation of the Scope Rule. Accordingly, for the period of time subsequent to September 29, 1977, we will dismiss the claim for failure of proof.

That the parties waived oral hearing;

 That the Carrier and the Employes involved is 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 violated.

 A W A R D
Claim sustained through September 29, 1977, and the claim is dismissed for the period of time thereafter, as stated in the opinion of Board.

 ATTEST
 Executive Secretary

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Third Division


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of March 1980.