(ISrotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Company

(a) Carrier violated the Clerical Rules Agreement effective September 1, 19+6, as amended, particularly Rule 1 (Scope).

 (b) Carrier permitted and allowed Diesel Shop Foreman, Mr. F. C. Rauschart, Jr. and Mr. R. Heister to perform clerical duties normally performed and assigned to the third (3rd) trick clerk such as the making out of AM (Morning) Report and giving the engine lineups to the Chief Dispatcher, Crew Dispatcher and Yard Offices and other duties assigned to the clerks.

 (c) The claimant Mr. J. W. Mogan be compensated for one (1) day's pay for each of tire following dates:



OPINION OF BOARD: The organization filed the instant claim alleging that
 Carrier had permitted Diesel Shop Foreman Rauschart and
 Heister to perform work normally performed and assigned to the third trick
 clerk. The Organization requests compensation for Claimant J. W. Morgan of
 46 days' pay at the pro rats sate.

 Carrier, on the other hand, alleges that the work of making out the morning report and giving engine line ups to the Chief Dispatcher, Crew Dispatchers, and Yard Officers is not work exclusively reserved to clerks and, further, that a special letter agreement of July 26p 1978, clearly covers the work in question. It was understood by the parties that the clerks on duty would work under the supervision of the General Foreman and in conjunction with the Assistant G that the specific task performed by the Foreman that is challenged in this grievance was discussed during the conferences that led to the July 26 Agreement. It was agreed the Assistant Foreman could, if need be, perform these tasks.

 This Board has carefully reviewed the record of this case and it is the Board's opinion that the duties performed by the Carrier supervisory personnel named in this grievance were not in violation of the Schedule Agreement and that the claim dates specified were covered by the July 26, 1978, agreement.


This Board finds no valid basis for this claim.

 FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties;
 to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole
 record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

 That the Carrier and the Employer involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employer 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 vas not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Divir;ion


ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Hoard
    r

BY
        marie Breach - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Qiicago,, Illinoispthis 10th day of March 1982. /
                                          ~~CEn E


                                              ~,,-.:, ~ 1. ~ =.?

                                              -,.

                                                      ,;;


                                            ~sro~o o~;v~e .c~ ~ .