Herbert Fishgold, 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-9389) that:


(1) Carrier violated and continues to violate the Clerk-Telegrapher Agreement when, commencing August 14, 1976, and continuing, it causes and permits Yardmasters, employees not covered thereby, to perform work around-the-clock seven (7) days per week in connection with the operation of a receiving teletype unit, including tearing off and separating message reports of cars at Newark Yard Office, Newark, Ohio, and
(2) As a result of such impropriety, Carrier shall compensate the belowlisted clerical employees hour shift shown (twenty-shifts) covering seven days per week beginning Saturday, August 14, 1976, and continuing for all subseguent dates and shifts until the violations cease:
Saturday 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM - R. D.Fogle Sunday 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM - R. D.Fogle
 3:00 PM -11:00 PM - V. N.Teagarden 3:00 PM - 11:00 PM - V. N.Teagarden
 11:00 PM - 7:00 AM - D. M.Laughlin
 Monday 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM - T.D.Riley Tuesday 7:00 AM -3:00 PM - T.D.Riley
        3:00 PM - 11:00 PM - N.R.Chester 3:00 PM - 11:00 PM,- N.R.Chester

        11:00 PM - 7:00 AM - E. J. Staley 11:00 PM -7:00 AM - M.H.Redman


Wednesday 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM - W.Dorsey Thursday 7:00 AM -3:00 Pt4 - W.Dorsey
        3:00 PM - 11:00 PM - G. Henry 3:00 PM - 11:00 PM - D. I.Hendershot

        11:00 PM - 7:00 AM - M. H.Redman 11:00 PM -7:00 AM - G.M.Henry


            Friday 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM - H. Fry

            3:00 PM - 11:00 PM - D.Hendershot

                  11:00 PM -7:00 AM - D. C. Wentz


OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute, one of six involving the same issue between the
 parties, concerns the Carrier's right to permit Yardmasters
 to "tear off" a list of freight cars, a "switch list," from a receiving machine
 following transmittal by use of telecommunications printers at Newark, Ohio.
By way of background, on April 26, 1976, Carrier established a Terminal Service Center at Newark, Ohio. The Terminal Service Center concept contemplates the retention of a perpetual inventory of cars moved into and out of the terminal, and eliminates the necessity of most daily track checking. Prior to the opening of the Newark Terminal Service Center, yard clerks were stationed at Newark Yard. When the Terminal Service Center at Newark was opened, the yard clerical employees were moved into the center and only Yardmasters remained in the yard office.
          Award Number 24866

                    Docket Number CL-24019 Page 2


Effective August 14, 1976, Yardmasters at the Newark Ohio Yard office operated a Kleinschmidt RO Printer which was installed at the office. Single-ply paper is used, and as lists of cars are transmitted to the yard office, the Yardmaster are able to tear off the sheets they need along the perforation. It is this "tearing off" of the sheets from the RO Printer that gives rise to this dispute.
The Organization contends that by so doing, the Carrier is causing and pevnitting employees not covered by the Clerks-Telegraphers Agreement to operate such communication receiving devices, including the work of removing (tearing off) and separating message reports of cars from such devices..
The dispute involves the parties' Scope Rule and Rule 67, Printing and Telegraph Machines. Claims that the Yardmaster's tearing off the list and separating the copies violated Rule 67 began to be received on all Carrier's properties. Since the dispute could not be resolved on the property, the Organization processed a December 1975 claim in the Cincinnati yard office and presented to this Hoard for adjudication. The Board sustained the claim in Award 22912 (Kasher) which, however, reduced the claim of eight lours pay "for work that took just a few seconds to perform" to a three-hour call.
Thereafter, this Board, with this Referee sitting, in Award 24861 - the first of the six pending disputes involving the same issue - after reviewing Award 22912 and the contracts, arguments and facts in Award 24861, concluded that the opinion reached in Award 22912 was correct. In so doing, this Board determined that, contrary to the Carrier's argument, Article 36 was not adopted unchanged in Rule 67 as regards the issue in dispute, and that read in the context of Rule 75, "the express and ambiguous language of Rule 67, with no stated exception comporting with the Carrier's argument," does rot allow Yardmasters to "tear-off" and/or "separate" switch lists.
Having found the claims to be sustained, this Board next addressed the question of appropriate remedy. in agreeing with Referee Kasher's remedy of three-hour call pay in Award 22912, this Board noted that while "some may regard such payment as excessive",
        "...the clear meaning of language may be enforced even though the results are harsh or contrary to the original expectations of one of the parties. in such cases, the result is based upon the clear language of the contract, not upon the equities involved."


Continuity in the interpretation. of contract rules is highly desirable, and such interpretations should rot be overruled without strong and compelling reasons. There is nothing presented in the consideration of the instant decision which in any meaningful way can serve to distinguish the rationale of the decision in this dispute from that in Award 22912 since it involves interpretation. of contract language. The parties are the same, the agreement is the same, and the facts are virtually identical. Having assessed the intent of the parties as evidenced by the contract language, ;,e conclude that the opinion reached in Award 22912, as confirmed in Award 24861, is the correct one.
          Award Number 24866

                    Docket Number CL-24019 Page 3


        FINDINGS: 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 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 violated.


                          A W A R D


        Claim sustained in accordance with the Opinion.


NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
        Nancy J r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of June, 1984