(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPU~E~' (Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company

(1) Carrier violated the Clerks' Rules Agreement at Sioux City, Iowa when it utilized employes outside the scope and application of the agreement to assume duties covered under the scope and application of such agreement on June 28, 29, July 22, 25 and 26, 1977.

 (2) Carrier shall now be required to compensate employes R. D. Blessing, R. M. Hoberg, P. Weisz, M. Wensel, E. L. Flair, G. T. Malloy and L. DeGroot each an additional eight (8) hours at the time and one-half rate on each of the claim dates listed at the applicable rates; the applicable rates are to be determined by a joint check of Carrier's records.

 OPINICU OF BOARD: The Organization alleges Carrier violated several rules of
 the Controlling Agreement, effective July 1, 1975, when on
 the claim dates in question, it utilized the services of personnel provided by
 an outside contractor to perform work of loading grain doors and grain car cooper
 age at its Sioux City, Iowa facility. The Organization asserts the disputed work
 has historically been performed at this facility under the scope and application
 of the Clerks' Rules Agreement.

 Carrier argues the disputed work is not now nor has it ever been exclusively assigned to and/or performed by employes represented by the organization. Thus, Carrier it utilized the services of personnel supplied by an outside contractor to perform the disputed work
Upon a review of the central issue, we find a preponderance of the evidence supports the Organization's assertion that the disputed work has indeed been performed by members of its Craft at the Carrier's Sioux City, Iowa location. As to Carrier's primary contention that the Organization must prove exclusivity of the dir.2uted work for its position to prevail, we disagree that this principle is applicable in the instant case, referring the parties to what we said in our Third Division Award No. 13236:
 Award Number 23217
 Docket Number CL-23212

 "The exclusivity doctrine applies when the issue is whether Carrier has the right to assign certain work to different crafts and classes of its employees - not to outsiders."

 Page 2

 In addition to the basic dispute at hand, we note the several minor points at issue whdch shall be disposed of as follows:



We find the applicable rate of pay to be the pro rata rate rather than the time and one-half rate as so contended by the Organization.

 3.

 Based on the foregoing discussion and determinations, the Board directs Carrier to compensate Claimant, E, L. Flair, eight (8) hours pay at the applicable pro rata rate for each of the four (4) claim dates of June 29; July 22; July 25; sad July 26, 1977.

That the parties waived oral hearing;

 That the Carrier and the Employes involved is this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

dispute involved herein; and

 That the Agreement was violated.

 A W A R D
Claim sustained as set forth in the Opinion.

 ATTEST: `lTI ·W · V
 Executive Secretary

 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT~BOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of March 1981.



It is evident that the Majority here has misapplied the exclusivity doctrine just as was done in Award 13236 upon which this Award is founded. Compounding error does not make it right. For the same reasons noted in our Dissent to Award 13236, we dissent here.

                          . F. r


                          . B. LeCosse

                          9~ A


                              ~, :ason


                            . 0 Conne