(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Rxpress and Station Employee. PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Missouri-Mums-Texas Railroad Company


(1) The Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company violated the current Rules Agreement between the parties, DP-451, including but not limited to Rule 45(f), when an Tuesday. June 17, 1980, it used General Clerk L. _. Schuth to perform duties at the ovsstims rate that are assigned to Chauffeur Haley G. Sc
(2) Carrier shall compensate Chauffeur Riley G. Schuth six (6) hours' pay at the time and one-half rate of the Chauffeur's Position at Denison.. Texas, in addition to any other monies earned on that date.

 OPINION CF HOARD: The Claimant is the occupant of a Chauffeur position in
 the Purchasing and Stores Department. On the day in ques
 tion, the Carrier used a different Clerk to drive the Purchasing and Stores
 Department track to deliver and unload supplies. The Driver was compensated
 at the overtime rate, for a total of six (6) hours of overtime.

 The Hkploye relies on Rule 45(f) which provides that for overtime before or after assigned hours, employee regularly assigned to the class of work for which overtime is necessary shall be given preference. Is this reward, the Eoploys cites Bu and which specifies that the incumbent of the position loads, wn7.oada and operates the Stores Department truck. Farther, the Employ* points out that there is no sisal" description concerning the "ties of the Clerk who actually performed the work on
The Carrier assts that the overtime in question was casual and was not the usual and custasary work of any position in the Purchasing and Stores Department and it denies that the Stores Department truck is exclusively assigned to the Clai
We do not dispute the authority cited by the Organisation in this case but we do not treat the facts here as analagrnss to a "mark on unassigned day" situation.

Award Number 24374

Docket Number CL-24281


Page 2

 We searched the record in vain to find evidence rhich establishes that the work in question is exclusively performed by the Claimant and accordingly ve do not find th


That the parties waived oral hearing;

 That the Carrier aid the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Iabor Acts, 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 W A R D
Claim denied.

 ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board
 By A :~a

NA'!?OAAL PAILRDA9 AWWTMENT BOARD 8y Order of Third Division

 Dated at Chicago, Illinaiss this IM day of May 1983.

 ,, 01