( Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-8895)

1. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties on April 14, 1978, when an employe, not covered by the clerical agreement, was used to perform work that is assigned to clerical employes.

 2. Carrier shall now pay Mr. D. W. Ellington eight hours at punitive rate for this violation.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was a member of the clerical extra list at
 Akron, Ohio, and as such is used to fill stockman positions at Carrier's Storehouse. On April 14, 1978, an employe of Carrier's Maintenance of Equipment Department drove a truck from the diesel house at Akron, Ohio to Brewster, Ohio to pick up needed material which was used at the diesel house. The Organization contends that the Clerks' Scope Rule was violated when an employe, outside of the Clerks' Agreement, was used to perform this truck driving duty to secure material.



Petitioner argues that the transportation and delivery of company material and supplies is work that is assigned to clerical employes and therefore the use of an employe outside of the clerk's ranks constitutes a removal of such work from the Clerks' Rules Agreement. It argues that this can only be accomplished by negotiation and agreement between the parties signatory to the Clerks' Rules Agreement.


Carrier, on the other hand, contends that the duties of picking up and delivery of company materials is, and historically has been, performed by employes of several departments including, but not limited to, clerks assigned at storehouses.

 The Scope rule here involved was recently considered in our Award No, 22150. There we said;

        "* * * Numerous times this Board has held this rule to be a specific, not general, scope rule and only a showing that work, once placed thereunder, has been removed in violation thereof is required. However, there is no showing that the work in dispute was ever performed by clerks, as the record discloses that, although required to list all cars handled in their trains into the yard prior to the issuance of Bulletin No. 92, only subsequent thereto were conductors required to list the cars in train order as well - the only

' apparent change resulting from Bulletin No. 92.

        "The Organization has not established in the first instance that this work had been placed under the scope of the agreement and thus could not be removed theref Rule 1(c) supra." (Underscore in the original)


In this case, from the evidence of record, it is apparent that the work of driving a truck to secure needed material has been a shared responsibility on this property. performed this service only when they were protecting vacancies on Storehouse Helper and Stockman positions." It is equally apparent that employes of other departments, including the Maintenance of Equipment Department, as in this instance, also drive trucks to pick up from a supply point material and equipment that is needed at the time by the particular using department. They transport such needed material and equipment to the location where it is then used. A continuance of this type of performance'by the using departments in the course of on-going repairs does not constitute removal of work from the application of the Clerks' Rules Agreement. The terms positions and/or work" as used in Rule 1(c) cannot mean more after December 1, 1973 than was included in the positions or performed by the positions prior to the inauguration of the specific Scope Rule. See also Award No. 20313 of this Division.

        The claim in this instance must be and is, therefore!-denied.

                      Award Number 22894 Page 3

                      Docket Number CL-23020


        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.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENP BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:.IA~ · ~~ecretarive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of June 1980,