(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employee
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Soo Line Railroad Company

(1) Carrier violated the effective Agreement, specifically Rules 1, 2, 6(a) and 49, rhea Carrier required and/or permitted employee not of our Craft and Class to perform Yard Clerk duties in the Columbia Heights Industry Area; employee not under the Scope of the effective Agreement.

 (2) The following Claimants shall be compensated on each of the specified dates for 8 hours at the rate of tine and one-half at the Rover Clerk rate:











OPIMN OF BOARD: The claim arose as a result of the Carrier's abolishment
 of a yard clerk position on September 23, 1977. The
 abolished position vas the Camden Industry Clerk. Prior to this action, the
 Carrier had a+,ilised this position and one other clerical position to slake
 physical yard checks of the Minneapolis Industry Yards, and the Columbia
 Heights Industry Yards. After the Carrier abolished the Camden Industry
 Yard Clerk position, it elected to continue to conduct physical yard checks
 of the Minneapolis Industry Yards and the Camden Industry Yards, leaving
 the Columbia Heights Industry Yards unchecked.
                    Docket Number CL-22801


On December 7, 1977, the Carrier issued instructions to Switch Foremen requiring them to complete a 5001 Form. Form 5001 indicates car numbers, cars pulled, cars set, time pulled and set and reset. A claim vas filed by the Organization on January 11, 1978, alleging that the Carrier had required employes not of the clerical craft or class to perform yard clerk duties in the Columbia Heights Industry Yard.

 The essence of this dispute is a conflict between the Carrier's attempt to run a more efficient operation and the organization's interest in maintaining employment for its members and preserving the sanctity of the work assigned to those members under applicable agreement provisions. The agreements and the past practices of the parties regarding clerical and switch crew work jurisdictions provide the frastework for resolving this dispute. The resolution will depend, in part, upon the appropriate characterisation of the duties under consideration. If said duties are characterised as duties which historically and by agreements have been performed by yard clerks, then the claim should be sustained. If, on the other hand, these duties are characterised as being "incidental" to the work of switch foremen, then the claim should be denied.

 'The Carrier contended that switch foremen have, over the years, been required to report information similar to that reflected on Form 5001, and that such reporting requirements were merely assignsents of incidental work. The Carrier also contended that road conductors have been required to fill out and submit Form 5001 and that switch foremen and road conductors are "one and the same" as demonstrated by the Consolidated Code of Operating Hulas.

 As to the latter contention, although this Hoard recognises that both switch foremen and road conductors may be subject to the seine set of operating rules, they are clearly not the same category of employe. They are certainly distinguished by their different duties and responsibilities in the handling of care and/or trains, and, in fact, their separate work jurisdictions are preserved by went or practice. A switch foreman performs various switching assignments within yard limits of his assigned terminal, while a road conductor ordinarily handles a train over the road from one terminal to another performing switching, as required and permitted, at intermediate points between terminals, which switching is duly recorded on the Form 5001. Form 5001 has been used by road conductors to show care set out at stations between terminals. This is not the use of the Form which the Carrier has required of its switch Foreten at the Columbia Heights Yard. At Columbia Heights, the switch foremen use Form 5001 for more than the purpose of recording the work that they performed in accordance with their assignments; they use the form to list cars remaining on the tracks at the conclusion of the switch assignments, they identify the care as loads or empties, and they designate the cars for fixture switching disposition. This reporting is e
                    Award Number 23273 page 3

                    Docket Number CL-22801


by the Camden Tadustry Clerk until that position vas abolished. There has been no shoving that the work assigned to switch foremen, shortly after the abolishsent of the yard clerk position, vas work historically performed as incidental and necess switch foramen.

 Therefore, the Carrier's contention that the duties are incidental to switch foremen duties is found to be without merit. Prior to Septa 23, 1977, clerks had, for approximately fifty years, performed the duties now being performed by witch foremen. The Carrier's abolishment of the yard clerk position did not make those duties incidental to the witch foramens' regularly assigned duties.

 Therefore it is found that the Carrier has violated the parties' agreement and a remedy commensurate with the violations should be fashioned. If the work performed on a dally basis amounts to a call or less under the applicable provisions of the collective hitrgaining agreement such remedy would appear to be appropriate in the circumstances of this case.

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

        That the parties waived oral hearing;


        - . - 1 J -- __A f,,- w,rInvaa involved in this dispute are

                      .


                                                Serial No. 319


                    NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD


' THIRD DIVISION
                  INTERPRETATION NO. 1·to AWARD NO. 23273


                        DOCKET NO. CL-22801


      NAME OF ORGANIZATION: Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship

      Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes


      NAME OF CARRIER: Soo Line Railroad Company


      Upon application of the Employes involved in the above Award that this Division interpret the same in the light of the dispute between the parties as to the meaning and application, as provided for in Section 3, First (m) of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934, the following interpretation is made:


      It is well established that the purpose of an interpretation is to explain and/or clarify the Award as originally'made and not to make a new Award.


      The original Award, upon which an interpretation is sought, clearly specified Individual Claimants who were to be paid as a result of the Carrier's violations.


      The claims were limited to specific dates in December of 1977 and January 1978. Neither the claim nor the Award addressed the issue of continuing liability, and this Interpretation will not expand the Award now to cover unnamed Claimants on unknown dates.


      Referee Richard R. Kasher, who sat with the Division as the Neutral Member when Award No. 23273 was adopted, also participated with the Division in making this interpretation.


                                  NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

          :,~z By Order of Third Division


      Attest

            Nancy ver - Executive Secretary


      Dated at Chicagc, Illinois this 15th day of December 1983.