(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Enployes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company

(1) Carrier violated the effective Clerk-Telegrapher Agreement when, on various dates commencing September 7, 1979 and continuing, it causes and permits employees not covered thereby, to pick up and deliver materials and supplies at Fairmont.. West Virginia, wad

 (2) Because of such impropriety, Carrier shall be required to compensate Chief Yard Clark J. K. Come (8) hours' pay ($70.88) for the dates of September 7, 11, 13, 26, 23; October 1,. 5, 10, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, 23, 24, 26, 30; November 1, 2, 6, 9, 15, 21, 23, 27; December 13 14, 18, 20, 27, 31, 1979; January 1, 7, 9a 10, 15, 18, 23, 25, 29, 31; February Sa 8a 13a 20a 21, 27, 29; March 4, 5a 7a UP 14, 19a 25a 2Ta 31; April 1, 3a 7a 9a 11, 17, 18, 24, 29, 30; May 2, 8, 9 and 13a 1980·
OPINION OF BOARD: The Organization contends that terrier violated Rule 1(c) of
 the controlling Agreement when it assigned part of the work
 belonging to the Janitor-Messenger position at Fairmont.. West Virginia to a
 Maintenance of Way Track Foreman. The Janitor-Messenger position vas abolished,
 effective September 7, 1979· The work in question involved the delivery of
 packages, bundles, cases and parcels of company materials and supplies from
 the storekeeper's office which the Organization argues should have been assigned
 to the Chief Yard Clark position or another clerical employs covered by the Agree
 ment at that location. It avers that the incumbent of the abolished Janitor
 Messenger's position regularly performed this function at Fairmont and it vas
 protected work under the Agreement and the relevant decisional lax of Special
 Board of Adjustment Ho. 192.
Carrier contends that it did not violate the Agreement, since it re-assigned the abolished position's functions to other clerical employer at that location consistent with the requirements of Rule 1(c). It argues that the former Janitor-Messenger consented-to use his own vehicle to deliver materials and supplies for which he received a mileage allowance under Rule 23, wad this particularized arrangement removed this work from the protective coverage of Rule 1(c). It asserts that it could not force another clerical employs to use his private automobile to perform this work since Rule 23 did not require as employs to use his vehicle for company business to qualify for a position. It avers that the work was also performed by the Maintenance of Way Track Foresaw who used a company owned truck to deliver supplies and it vas permissible under
                    Docket Number CL-24161


these distinguishable circumstances to assign the work to him.

 In our review of this case, we concur with Claimant's position. Essentially, the reasoning is Award No. 91 of Special Board of Adjuscment No. 192 articulates a fundamental principle that if work of an abolished position is incident to the primary duties of any craft or class, the work nonetheless, if it is to be continued at that location, reverts to the remaining employes of the abolished position's craft at that location. The duties of the JanitorMessenger in the instan to Rule 23, to deliver the materials at Fairmont, but he also loaded and unloaded these materials in work process that was different from the incidental work performed by the Maintenance of Way Track Foreman. In some cases, however, it was necessary to load these supplies in the Maintenance of Way Track Foreman's truck, because of bulls weight, siz warrant its exclusive assignment to the Track Foreman.. when the Janitor-Messinger's position was ab work should have been first offered to Claimant or the other clerical. employee at Fairmont., West Virginia before being assigned carte blanche to the Track Foreman. If Claimant or the other employee refused to perform this work, in accordance with Rule 23, then the Track Foreman could have been assigned this work. Exclusivity is not at issue. Since the work was performed by, the Janitor.,Hessenger on a rather long term basis, it was work that de facto accrued to this position and was protected by Rule 1(c). Inasmuch as carrier did not offer this work first to Claimant or the other clerical employes at that location, it violated the Agreement. We agree with Carrier, however, that the claimed relief requested is unduly excessive and disproportion direct that Claimant be paid his straight time for fifteen (15) minutes on each of the claimed dates. This was the estimated time it took to perform the disputed function.

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


        That the parties waived anal hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and F5aployea 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 was violated.


                        A W A R D


          Claim sustained is accordance with the Opinion.

                        Award Number 23945 age 3

                        Docket Number CS.-24161


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD AWTJS24MT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Bawd

 By .J~.ts~
 ~marie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago., 111inoisv this 14th day of July 1982.