(American Train Dispatchers Association
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 (e) The St. Louis-Sea Francisco Railway Company (hereinafter referred to as "the Carrier"), violated particular, rhea it required and/or permitted. Assistant Superintendent of Transportation E. C. Reeves to handle crews and other related work between 3:30 p.m. sad 11:30 p.m., January 18, 1978.

 (b) Because of said violation, the (terrier shall now compensate the senior qualified extra train dispatcher available, eight (8) hours at Assistant Chief Dispatcher rate.

 (c) In the event no qualified extra train dispatcher is available the claim is made on behalf of the senior qualified regularly assigned train dispatcher at the appropriate rate.

 (d) Eligible individual claimant entitled to the compensation claimed herein is readily identifiable and shall be determined by a ,joint check of the (terrier's records*

 OPINION OF BOARD: On January 18, 1978, a derailment occurred. The Organization
 alleges that instead of calling an extra train dispatcher to
 perform the additional dispatcher xork occasioned by the ~ergency, the Carrier
 used the Assistant General Superintendent of Transportation, Mr. E. C. Reeves,
 to perform work reserved to the dispatchers.

 In support of its position, the Organization has submitted three turnover reports prepared by Mr. E. C. Reeves, Assistant General Superintendent of Transportation on the day in question. The Scope Rule upon which this claim is based is foul in Article I of the agreement between the parties.

 The,Carrier has cited inter alia Award No. 1 of Public Law Board 588 and the Organization inter alas Award Nos. 19 and 20 of Public Lax Board 588 as being is support of their respective positions. A reading of those Awards makes clew the distinction between what is properly dispatcher's work sad work that can be performed by other supervisory personnel.
 Award Number 23391
 Docket Number TD-22'f(5

 Page 2

 In the instant case a reading of the turnover reports in light of the precedent submitted to this Board for review does reflect that Mr. Reeves performed dispatcher's work is the instant matter. We find, based upon the evidence submitted, that Mr. Reeves was handling crew and performing other train dispatcher work as alleged. Said work is reserved by Article I b 1. of th the claim.

That the parties waived oral hearing;

 That the Carrier sad the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 19341

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; sad

 That the Agreement has been violated.

 A W A R D
Claim sustained.

 ATTEST-


NATIONAL RAILROAD AWM24MT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 6th any of October 1981.

 Qr C

C~ 10 0 ice olf'.