Rodney E. Dennis., Referee


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


                STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-9539) fit:


(1) terrier violated, and continues to violate, the Scope Rule of the Clerk-Telegrapher Agreement, commencing January 2, 1980, and continuing, when it causes and requires employees not covered by the Agreement to perform clerical work of transcribing reports and keeping records and other necessary data in connection with Car Department Operations at Parkersburg., West Virginia, and,

 (2) Carrier shall compensate Claimant C. M. Burkey, Jr., eight (8) hours' pay at punitive rate beginning January 2, 1980, and continuing each and ell subsequent work dates that Carrier permits and requires non-clerical employees to perform clerical work here made basis of claim at Farkersburg, West Virginia.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The dispute is this case involves a contention by the Clerk's
 Organization that employee not covered by the BRAC Agreement specifically Carman and Car Department Supervisors - were required at Parkersburg, West Virginia, to perform certain work which allegedly accrues to Clerks. The work complained of consists of the preparation by Carmen and Car Department Supervisors of reports w
Because of the possible involvement of other labor organizations in this dispute, specifically the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of the United States and Canada and the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company Supervisors Organization, notic The Carman submitted argument to the Board which has been reviewed and considered in our determinations of this dispute.

 From the voluminous record in this case, we perceive that ''_he genesis of this dispute is found in the fact that sometime is 1 7 clerical position No. G 102 at Parkersburg was abolished. The remaining duties of that abolished position were, according to Carrier, "divided between a Section Stockman position, held by Claimant Burkey, and a Clerk-Typist position position in the Office of Terminal Trainmaster at Parkersburg." The claim in the instant-dispute was presented to Carrier by l 1980. Petitioner argues that "The clerical work formerly performed for the Trainmaster, Locomotive a abolished) was not entirely distributed to other clerical forces in Parkersburg Terminal - -- T r Underscore theirs). From 1973 to 1980 apparently no complaint or claim was made relative to the work here in dispute.
 Award Number 24059
 Docket Number Q.-24441

 This Refer?e in Third Division Award No. 23478 said:

 Page 2

    "Carrier and claimant have engaged is the same arrangement for

a period of eight to ten years. (The record is not precise on
 this point, but it is agreed that the arrangement has existed for
 a long period of time.) The Organization cannot now come forward
 and complain about such an arrangement by pressing a claim for
 penalty pay. The Organization, by its acquiescence to the arrange
 ment over such a long period of time, has signaled the carrier
 that the arrangement is this particular case would not be queried.
 To now file a claim to tell (terrier that the arrangement that has
 existed far the last eight or tea years is no longer acceptable
 is inappropriate and not acceptable procedure in good faith labor
 relations. If the Organization and/or the Claimant wanted to
 set carrier straight on this issue, they should have, at the out
 set of the assignment, wade their objections knows. Given the
 long period of time during which the arrangement was accepted by
 the union, its failure to file a complaint bars them from lodging
 an objection now."

 See also Third Division Award No. 15827 (Ives).

 In this case too the employes obviously slept on their rights to complain for more than six (oj years. They cannot nor be heard to complain that there was in 1973 an improper distribution of work.

 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 Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier sad Employes 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 not violated.

 A 51 A R D
Claim denied.

 ATTEST: Acting E:cecative Secretary
      National Railroad Adjustment Board


NATIONAL RAILROAD A~!1~ . ff`By Order of Third bi

    ;:osemarie ras - A stmt rativ-. Assistant


Dated 'at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of December 1932.