PARTIES TD 413PUM:



(a) The Carrier violated Role 12 and others of the Clerics' Agreement February 23, 24, 25 and 26, 1976, when they required Chief Clerk Vernon Cecil. to suspend duties on his regular assignment and perform duties assigned position
(b) Carrier shall now allow Claimant Vernon Cecil eight (8) hours pay at the pro rata rate far each date as a result of this violation.

 OPINION OF BOARD: On February 23, 24, 25 and 26, 1976, Carrier assigned
 Versos Cecil, Chief Clerk, C-26, end Claimant herein, to perform duties assigned to the position of Demurrage Clerk, C-a2.

 Organization submits that this action violated Rule 12(a) (1) sad the Note thereto because in its view Claimant as Chief Clerk was obligated to perform only. insi provisions of the Agreement.

 The issues here posed are, essentially, presented end dealt with is our Award Nos. 23324 and 23325. The contentions of both Carrier and Organization are virtually identical in all three eases.

 A critical issue is all three cases has to do with terrier's defenses that, is addition to the fact that Claimant's supervisory status invested him with the obligation to perform outside as well as inside duties, Claimant's regular duties as Chief Clerk also involved the performance of outside duties.

 In both the Awards here cited, this Board refused to consider the latter defense because, on review of the respective reeds, we concluded that the question whethe required the performance of outside duties was not timely raised and issue was not joined on the property prior to the filing of notice of intent.


In the instant case Carrier asserts that the question was timely raised. Thus, Carrier makes specific reference to its letter to Organization dated August 16, 1978, almost a year before the filing of the notice of intent herein. Carrier also emphasizes that, notwithstanding adequate time and opportu exception to Carrier's assertion that the regular duties of a Chief Clerk required the performance of outside duties. On this premise, among others, Carrier asks that the claim be denied in its entirety.

 The contention here made by Carrier is on its face cogent and appealing. However., it does not withstand scrutiny. The pertinent language of the August 16 letter, upon which (terrier relies, reads:

        "As advised you in conference, the supervisory and instructional duties assigned to the chief clerk position are not limited to either inside or outside work sad as such, Claimant Cecil was properly required to perform the work is question on the of February 23, 24, 25 and 26, 1976. (Underlining supplied.)


        In view of the foregoing, the rules of the Clerk's Agreement have not been violated and your claim is accordingly denied."


This Board fails to perceive in what way the underlined words "supervisory and instructional duties" can be read as alerting Claimant or Organization to a claim that the regular duties of a Chief Clerk rare being put in issue. The chart setting forth the disposition of a Chief Clerk's duties does shoal an allowance of five hours per moth to assist in the supervision of office force. It seems fair to assume that instructional duties might arise in that reg%xd though the term itself nowhere appears is the chart. And nothing is the remainder of the outline of the Chief Clerk's duties has anything to do with instructional duties.

 Accordingly, the Board concludes that Carrier did not timely raise the defense that the regular duties of a Chief Clerk involved outside duties. That issue, therefore, is not considered here and no ruling is made thereon.

 The remaining questions which are in issue need not be discussed here because they have been adequately considered is the two Awards already cited.

 For the reasons there stated, and the authorities there referred to, we conclude that there was a violation of the Agreement in the instant case. The entire claim is sustained.
                  Award Number 23326 Page 3

                  Docket Number CL-23144


        FIIdDIBCS: 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 respectUely Carrier and Employee 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 violated.


                    A W A R D


Claim sustained; Claimant shall be allowed eight (8) hours pay at the pro rata rate for February 23, 24, 25 and 26, 19'6.

                        NATIONAL RAILROAD AWUS24ENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
      Executive Secretary


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