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



1. Carrier violated the Rules Agreement between the parties, in particular Scope Rule 1, Paragraph (c), when it permitted Mr. John Motta, a Carrier officer of the Norfolk and Western Railway Company to perform routine clerical work in its Madison Yard Office.

 2. Carrier shall now be required to compensate MM Clerk Fred E. Hell eight (8) hours pay at the pro-rata rate of his regular assignment for July 15 16, 17, 18, 31, August 3, 10, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, 26, 27, 29 and 31, 1976.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The pivotal question before this Board is whether
 Mr. John Moos, of the Norfolk and Western Service Bureau, performed work which was properly protected by the Clerk's Agreement, on the dates delineate
The Organization contends that Mr. Notts violated Agreement Rule 1 when he used waybills from the Madison PILL Rack to route cars for switching and submitted documentary evidence indicating the type of work he performed. It presented a =mbar list which Mr. Motta apparently marked and routed for switching purposes and a list that the Supervisor marked out and routed for classification purposes. It asserted that he took car orders from the Granite City Street Company, matched waybills with cars and answered telephones and gave information employes indicating the type of work performed by Supervisor Mott&*

 Carrier, argues that Mr. Motta's activities amounted to nothing more than looking at bills for traffic of his Company, a privilege it accorded to other carriers. It contends that he merely checked. the N & W's traffic for routing and switching errors and reported them, which in essence was confirmed by the statements of Messrs. Summers, Duroso, and Johnson submitted on behalf of Claim indicates that they performed the clerical functions that were involved in the changing of cars.


In our review of this case, we recognize the possibility that a person temporarily assigned to another Carrier to perform administrative oversight functions, such as intended here, when the N & W was struck by the Brotherhood of Railway and Airline Clerks might perform duties of a correlative nature, that are rind in this instance that Mr. Motto performed clerks work that was not De Minimus in nature. The Organization adduced documentary evidence depicting that Mr. Motto marked and routed lists of N & W Traffic. It asserted that he_pulled waybills, changed routing on such bills, took car orders from another company and matched waybills with cars, etc.. Carrier never adequately refuted these activity specifics or more importantly addressed the lists that were presented in conference and pointedly noted in the organization's September 12, 1979 letter. It argued that the clerks statements depicting Mr. Motta's actions confirmed its position, but the contents of those letters indicate more persuasively that he performed clerks work. To be sure, we cannot state that he performed clerk's work exclusivel preclude such an assessment and the aforementioned clerks statements . demonstrate that he directed them. But he also performed work ancilary to his main function, that belonged to them.

 Contrary to Carrier's position that Agreement Rule 1 is general in nature, we find sufficient specificity in paragraph C thereof to conclude otherwise. The non-supervisory work that he performed was protected by this provision and w albeit inadvertently, significant clerical duties. We agree with the Organization that Carrier's Exhibit C, which is Mr. Motta's October 23, 1978 letter to Mr. C. W. Haynes, was not exchanged on the property, but we find that the contents therein with the exception of his statement. that he worked 3 hours per day at TRRA Madison, Illinois were known by the Organizations. This part of the letter is thus inadmissible as per the explicit requirements of Circular No. 1 . On the other hand, Clerk James F. Johnson's statement to Local Chairman Scholbe indicates that Mr. Matta arrived at the office between 8:00 AM and 2:00 PM each day. At most this would mean that he worked 6 hours. We do not believe that he spent his entire time performing clerical duties because that would be inconsistent with his primary mission. We do find that he performed clerical duties that were more than necessary to complete his assignment. However, it would be unfai Claimant 8 hours pay at his pro rata rate as it would also be unreasonable to exact 6 hours compensatory payment, when we find that Mr. Notts, performed supervisory duties as well. It would be more judicious and consistent with our findings to award Claimant 3 hours pay at his regular assignment's pro rata rate for the days set forth in the claim.
                    Award Number 23228 page 3

                    Docket Number CL-23175


        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and. holds:


        That the pasties waived oral hearing;


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

 That t4is 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 in accordance with the Opinion.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive Secretary


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