Canton R. Sickles, Referee


(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station r7nployes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Soo Line Railroad Company

                STATE24EITT OF CLAM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-8965) that:


(1) Carrier violated the effective Agreement, specifically Rules 1, 2, 6(a), and 49, when Carrier employee not of this Graft and Class performed the duties of the Assistant Chief Yard Clerk on each shift from Sept. 26 through Sept- 30, 1977.

 (2) Claimants are Assistant Chief Yard Clerks and they shall be compensated on each of the specified dates at the rate of time and one-half at the Assistant Chief Yard Clerk's rate of pay.

        C. Lunderborg: Sept. 26, 27, 28 and 30, 1977.

        R. Gagne: Sept. 26 and 27, 1977.

        E. Hanlin: Sept. 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1977.

        L. Staeden: Sept. 28, 29 and 30, 1977.

        L. Boog: Sept. 30, 1977.


OPINION OF BOARD: Claimants allege that yardmasters performed work customarily
 sad historically performed by clerical employee at Shoreham
 during the period September 26, 1977 until October 1, 1977 when the work was
 again performed by clerical employee.

 The Carrier disagrees that the specific work was performed exclusively by clerical employee at Shoreham and further pointed out other locations is the system where "blocking", the work at issue, is performed by yardmasters.

 There is some confusion in the record as to the exact nature of the work being complained of and the exact functions which have been allegedly performed by the respecti
However, since this dispute involves the alleged performance of clerk's work by yardmasters in violation of the agreement between the parties, the claimants, in orde and customarily, the work is question has been exclusively performed by clerks on the carrier system. See Awards 12360 and 12897.

Award Number 2383$

Docket Number CL-23352


Page 2

 A complete review of the record reveals `,.hat the claimants have failed to satisfy their burden of proof that the work involved was exclusively performed by the clerks on the carrier system, and the claim will be dismissed for want of sufficient evidence.

        FMINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Boards upon the whole record and all the evidence., finds and holds:


That the parties waived oral hearing;

 That the Carrier and the Employes involved is 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 jur3sdiction over i_ the dispute involved herein; and


                                    That the Agreement has not been violated.


                                    Claim dismissed.


Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
        National Railroad Adjustment Board


BY
      osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago Illinois., this 26th day of march 1982.

 NATIONAL RAILROAD ALITUSUM';NT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division