PARTIES TO DISPUTE; Freight Handlers, bxpress and Station Enployes
 (Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company



the scope of
 14P 15 and it ~ u nd/or permitted an employe not covered by
 governing Agreement perform work covered by the scope

 thereof. The now be required to compensate Clerk Anton J.
 Berta for eight hours pay at the pro rata rate of the position of Crew
 Dispatcher for February 8, 14 and 15, 1980 respectively, and for eight (8)
 pay at the ~ of time and one-half of the position of Crew Dispatcher
 for February 22, 1 .

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant contends the Carrier deprived him of work vhich
 is reserved to Crew Dispatchers under the Scope Rule
 (Rule 1) when the Carrier permitted the train dispatcher to compile and dis
 sami°ate data cones the lineup of incoming trains on February 8, 14,
 15 and 22, 1980. The crew dispatcher obtains the necessary data from the
 train dispItcher, converts the information into a specified form report and
 that
 then ., on the report to designated employee. The Organisation argues
 ' arty, the work is exclusively reserved to clerical employee assigned as crew dispatchers on the basis of a long standing historical practice and because the carrier's "Crew Dispatcher's Manual" assigns the duties to crew dispatchers. In the manual, crew dispatchers are instructed to Prepare and distribute an inbound train line-up at four-hour intervals each day' The Carrier concedes that the train dispatcher performed the work on the dates in question but raises three major defenses. First, the Carrier claims the train dispatcher can efficiently and expeditiously compile the line-up since he is the source of the information contained in the report. is incidental
 According to to the train dispatcher's preparation and distribution of the report
rier alleges that the practice of using crew dispatchers to preps the
 1~ bpbeeame obsolete in 1973 vhen the train dispatcher moved into the
 building occupied by the crew dispatcher. The Carrier, therefore,
 asserts that the current claim is barred by Inches and estoppel because
                    Docket Number CL-23985


the Employes should haw raised the claim in 1973. Lastly, the Carrier urges us to deny the claim because the claimant has failed to prove that the broad Scope Clause covers this particular work. Furthermore, the Carrier states that the Crew Dispatcher's Manual is irrelevant since it vas unilaterally issued and not the product of collective bargaining.

 On this property, the record presented to us clearly shows that employes in the position of crew dispatcher have historically and exclusively performed the task of preparing and delivering the report on incoming trains. Once this exclusivity is obtained, the Scope Rule protects the activity, and the work cannot be removed except through collective negotiations. Third Division Awards No. 20839 (Fen); and No. 21382 (Lieberman).

 None of the Carrier's defenses are applicable. First, clerical work often involves the compilation and distribution of information. It is a vital function which in this case has been reserved to the crew dispatchers. Though the train dispatcher now 'works in close proximity to the crew dispatcher, the location of the employes' Workplace does not automatically reduce the established duties of the the train dispatcher has been regularly assigned to prepare the line-ups. Evan if such an assignment had occurred, it would be in direct conflict with both the exclusivity concept and the Carrier's own manual. Lastly, as we stated before, the Organisation teas proffered sufficient evidence demonstrating that the work is ex Rule on this property is specific, enough to encompass this work. Thus, the Carrier improperly deprived the claimant of work on February 8, 14, 15 and 22, 1980.

 Under the circumstances, the claimant is entitled to receive two hours of pay at the rate of time and one-half for each of the four days set forth in the claim.

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


        That the parties valved oral hearing;


Tint the Carrier and the Employer involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and FAnployes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 3.934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and
                    Award Number 234$5 page 3

                    Docket Number CL-23985


        That the Agreement was violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim sustained in accordance with the Opinion.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT HOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
          cative Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois., this 8th day of January 1982.

 I -~J.lii

    o ~

      1.