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

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood

(a) The Carrier violated the Rules Agreement dated May 1, 1966, amended January 1, 1971 particularly Rules 1, 2 and 6, February 7, 1965 National Job Stabilization Agreement and others, when it allowed and permitted subcontractor, (Motor Rail Del work at King Road, Woodhaven,, Michigan. Historically this work was performed. by employee represented by the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes. D. F. Beavers, Seniority date 10/3/49, Machine Operator & Bill Clerk, Tour of duty: 11:00 P.M. - 7:00 A.M., Rest Days: Saturday and Sunday, is willing to perform this work, but the Carrier as of this da covered by the Rules Agreement.

 (b) The Carrier now be required to compensate D. F. Beavers $57.00 plus $1.92 COLA at the punitive rate, commencing November 15, 1976, and to continue for each and every work day until the violations are corrected.

OPINION OF BOARD: It is uncontested in this record that prior to May, 1975,
 Carrier utilized clerical employes to perform certain clerical functions in connection with the Carrier's piggyback operations at Rouge Yard, Dearborn., Michigan. It is also a fact that at Rouge Yard Carrier employed without complaint an outside contractor in connection with the piggyback operations.

 Subsequent to May, 1975, Carrier discontinued its piggyback operations at Rouge Yard and initiated piggyback operations at Woodhaven Yard. Woodhaven, Michigan. There have been no clerical employes headquartered at Woodhaven Yard since 1965. Carrier did - and still does - employ Yardmasters at Woodhaven Yard. With the advent of the piggyback operations at Woodhaven Yard, Carrier utilized the Yardimsters and an outside contractor to perform the necessary service in connection with the piggyback handling. The Yardmasters, in addition, continued to perform all of the other functions previously performed by them at this facility. As a result, Petitioner initiated and progressed the claim as out-


lined in the Statement of Claim supra alleging that Carrier violated Rules No. 1, 2 and 6 as well as the Fe~uary 7, 1965 National Job Stabilization Agreement.

        Rule No. 1 is titled Sue.


        Rule No. 2 is titled Definitions - Clerks.


        Rule No. 6 is titled Bulletins.


For brevity we will not quote the complete contents of these Rules. From the arguments advanced by the parties it is apparent that the gravamen of this dispute lies in the alleged transfer of certain clerical work, formerly performed by clerical employes at Rouge Yard, to Yardmasters at Woodhaven Yard.

 After having reviewed the voluminous record in this case and having considered the arguments ably presented by both parties, it is our conclusion, first, that the February 7,9 1965 National Stabilization Agreement is not involved in this dispute and, if it were, this Board wou to resolve such a dispute because that National Agreement contains its own procedures for adjudicati
        Second, Rule No. 1 - Scope, in pertinent part, provides as follows:


            ,1*. * *


            (b) This Agreement shall not apply to:


          4. Employees of other crafts, and the work they perform, whose duties require them to perform cleri such as yardmasters, assistant yardmasters, agents, assistant agents, special agents (policemen), ma draftsmen * and helpers * and laborers *, telegraphers, employees who handle orders or messages affecting the movement of trains, or who operate interlocking plants or movable span bridges."


        (d) 3. This Agreement shall not prohibit employees not covered by this Agreement from performing clerical work incidental and necessary to their regular as of this Agreement. No work normally performed by an em - ployee covered by this Agreement shall be performed, transferred or assigned to an employe not cover and the Local Chairman." "*It is understood that the positions are subject to a memorandum of Understanding dated November 23, 1970."

                      Award Number 23392 page 3

                      Docket Number CL-23027


It is apparent in this case that the Yardrmsters at Woodhaven have and may properly continue to perform those "incidental and necessary" functions which have historically been performed by them. However, the clerical functions relative to the piggyback operations which were "within the purview of this Agreement" by reason of having been performed by clerical employes at Rouge Yard and on which there was no "discussion and agreement between the Management and the Local Chairman" prior to their having been transferred and assigned to the Yardmasters at Woodhaven Yard, are being performed by the Yardmasters at Woodhaven Yard in violation
As for the allegations relative to the use of the outside contractors, there is no probative evidence in this record to indicate that the outside contractor at Woodhaven Y contractor at Rouge Yard.

 As to the damages issue, we remand this to the parties and direct them to jointly determine on a direct relationship basis the amount of time - on a minute basis - consumed by the Yardmasters at Woodhaven Yard incident to the performance of clerical work of the same nature as formerly performed by clerical employes at Rouge Yard directly related to the piggyback operation only. Payment under this determination is to be made at the pro rata clerical rate.

 All other aspects of this dispute are found to be unconvincing or inapplicable and are denied.

        FINDINGS: 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 respectively Carrier and Employes 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 to the extent outlined in the Opinion of Board.

                      A W A R D


        Claim disposed of as per Opinion of Board.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD AWM24ENT BOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of September 1981.