(Brotherhood of Railway. Express and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

                      (Illinois Central Gulf Railroad


                      STAT34MT OF CLAIM: Claim -of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-8282) that:


        1. Company violated the agreement between the parties effective September 2, 1977, when it began requiring Clerk A. F. Welters at Mobile. Alabama to begin performing work and duties of a higher rated position while receiving a lover rate of pay.


        2. Company shall now be required to compensate Clerk A. F. Welters in the emouat of $4.05 per day, the difference is the rate formerly paid to the position that was assigned the disputed work and duties, $63.80 per day, and that of claimants regular position No. 80, $59.75 per day, beginning September 2, 1977, and continuing until he begins receiving the higher rate of pay.


        3. Company violated the agreement between the parties effective August 31, 1977, when it began requiring Clark W. J. Balls at Mobile., Alabama to begin performing the work and duties formerly assigned and performed by a higher rated position sad refused to allow claimant the higher rated pay.


        4. Company shall now be required to compensate Clerk W. J. Balls in the amount of $7.21 per day, the difference is the higher rated position, $63.80 per day, and that of his regular position No. 84, $56.59 per day, beginning August 31, 1977, and continuing until he is allowed the higher rate of pays


        OPINION CF HOARD: The position of Mr. Prendergast is Chicago was abolished on

        March 23, 1976 and part of the duties of this position were assigned to Mr. Yancey is Mobile at that time. On August 31 and September 2, 1977, the Prendergast portion of Mr. Yancey's fob was, in tuna, reassigned to the claimants. Claimants allege that since Mr. °rendergast occupied a higher rated position they should be paid the difference in pay from the date the reassignments were made.


        The claimants rely upon the provisions of Rule 36 (e) which provides as follows:


              "Rhea positions are consolidated, the higher rate of pay of the consolidated positions shall apply."


', They conclude that when employee are required to perforce duties of s
        higher rated position, they are to receive the higher rate of pay.

                                                          e,,


                      Award Number 23927 Page 2

                      Docket Number CL-23763


The Carrier alleges however, that Rule 37 (c) is`boutrolling.. which provides as follows:

        "Duties which have been transferred from a lower to a higher rated position may be reassigned to a position with a rate equal to or higher than that of the original position. The higher rate will not apply to minor duties of a higher rated position."


In this instance, the Carrier indicates that those duties of Mr. Prendergast which were reassigned on the two occasions indicated had previously been reassigned to Mr. Prendergast from clerical positions rated comparable to the clerical positions now held by the claimants. These positions were transferred to the other duties accounting for the higher rating, The Carrier alleges that this particular work was a very minor part of Mr. Prendergast's duties. The Carrier points out that the reassigned duties involved were essentially clerical work whereas the other more significant duties of Mr. Prendergast involved traveling sad communicati
Claimants have questioned the fact that the work involved was previously of the nature sad level described by the Carriers and asserts that even if it were that since the reassignment occurred prior to the current agreement sad prior to the mergers such previous history is not controlling here.>.

 We do not support the claimants' position in this regard because we do not find anything which would limit the application of-Rph;;,37 (c) to re-assignments after the merg
When the Sob of Mr. Prendergast was abolished and.t~ha duties were reassigned a conference was held and the decision was made to assign the work to tar. Yancey who had a higher rated position than that of Mr. Prendergast. The Organization alleges that this was done because the Carrier was required to do so. The Carrier alleges that it was done in order to keep "peace in the family", thereby preventing the filing of a claim at that time. Given the convicting assertions as to the reasons for this assignment, we feel that it is itself does not dispose of the matter and leaves the parties where they were. The fundamental question is whether this work assigned was, in fact, originally the clerical work of the level and pay stated by the Carriers

 It is difficult for this Board to ascertain objectively., based upon the record., the proper rating of the duties involved. The (terrier has described in detail the comparability of the work reassigned, to the other work already being performed by the claimants which was not effectively refuted by the claimants.
                        Award Number 23927 Page 3

                      Docket Number CL-23763


However, the basic issue here is whether there is reason to believe that these duties ware originally assigned to employee with a lesser pay than Mr. Prendergast and, in turn, comparable to the claimants* If this is true, then the claimants will not prevail.

 The (terrier has demonstrated that the positions which originally included these duties were located is Mobile, Alabama prior to the merger and it named the incumbents performing this type of work. Two of the incumbents include the claimants.

 While at one point the claimants allege no knowledge of~these facts, they essentially affirm that the duties were performed by personnel in Mobile prior to the merger by designating individuals who performed the functions.

 The question narrows not to the difference is rating between Kr. Prendergast and the claimants, but rather the difference between the claimants and the alleged performers of these functions is Mobile prior to the merger and reassignment of these functions.

 As described by the (terrier, and not refuted by the claimants, the dudes reassigned to the claimants appear to be of like nature to the functions being performed by the claimant.

 Claimants have not demonstrated that persons who they allege performed the functions were in higher rated positions and if so, that the higher rated positions were so classified by the nature of the duties in this matter rather than other functions performed by them. We will deny the claims.

        FIPmIN(S: 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 Employee within `,.he meaning of the Railway Labor Art, as approved June 21, 193;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.

                                                          l,_ Award Number 239e7 page 4

                      Docket Number CL-23763


                        A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                            RATIONAL RAI<.ROAD ADJUSUIEUT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Acting Mcecutive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 BY
      o emarie Breech - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day o! June 1982.

 r, ,. it

                .:,_, Y

        Q~cEi vEo

                  .,


        J'JL ~~ n:':.?


        /0,090 Office

        ....