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



(a) The terrier violated Rule 12 and others of the Clerks' Agreement October 14, 15, lb and 17, 1975 when they required Chief Clerk Vernon Cecil to suspend duties on his regular assignment and perform duties assigned position of Demurrage Clark, G82, on each date.

 (b) (7arrier shall now allow Claimant Vernon Cecil eight (8) hours pay at the pro rata rate tar each date as s result of this violation.

 OPINION of HOARD: In October of 1975 an four successive days, October 14,
 15, 16 and 17, Chief Clerk Versos Cecil., G26, (D,aimaat herein, was assigned to do work of the Demurrage Clerk, Ga2, as well as his own assignment. The Orptaisatian protested the assignment as violative of pertinent language in the Agreement and asked that Claimant be compensated at the pro rata rate for each of the wned dates,

 Our review of the entire recxr makes it appear that our Award No. 23324 is of special significance lucre. Indeed, the situations are virtually identical. Here, as is that case, the Or nization contends that the assignm T1), and the Note thereto, because Claimant wbo as Qiief Clerk performed exclusively inside duties was being assigned to a position where outside duties were involved. Here, also, as in that ease, Ovrri.er's basic defense is that Claimant because of his supervisory status as Chief Clerk vis-a-vis the demurrage clerk mist be oonaidared as being assigned. to both inside .and outside duties. Hare, also, the tlsrrier makes reference, in its letter of July 23, 1979, to an additional defense that the regular duties of a thief Clerk called for the parfarraaos of outside duties.

 The difference between the two oases is that is the prior case the July 23, 1979 letter was dated. four days after the filing of the notice of intent whereas is the instant case both documents bore the same date July 23, 1979· Our visa of the respective records., however, satisfies us that in neither instance was issue joined on the property as to whether the regular duties of a fief park required the performance of outside duties.


Accordingly, on the basis of the authorities cited in the prior Award, re trill not consider the second of the two contentions here advanced sad make no finding as to the merits of that contention.

 As to other questions in dispute, for the roe sons set forth in our prior Atrard, we are of the view and conclude that there was a violation here and sustain the entire claim.



That the Carrier and the Employes involved 3n this dispute are respectively Carrier and Enployes within the meaning of the Railway labor Art, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction aver the dispute involved herein; and



Wa's sustained; Claimant shall be allowed eight (8) hours pay at the pro rata rate far October 14, 15, lb and 17r 1975.

                      NATIO&1L RAILROAD AJDUSTMENT HOARD

                      By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
      '

      Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of June 1981.