(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Missouri Pacific Railroad Company

(1) Carrier violated the Clerks' Rules Agreement when it failed and refused to compensate Computer Control Specialist W. G. Martin, St. Louis, Missouri, for the difference in rate of pay between rate of Computer Control Specialist and that of Computer Operations Supervisor effective January, 1983, and continuing each month he is required to assume or assist on the duties of Computer Operations Supervisor.

 (2) Carrier's action is in violation of Rule 31 of the Agreement between the parties.

 (3) Carrier shall be required to compensate Claimant Martin as claimed."

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claim before the Board centers upon the issue of whether
 the Carrier violated Rule 31 of the Agreement wherein it is
 alleged that Claimant was required to perform higher rated work. Claimant is
 a Computer Control Specialist and was required to perform some duties of the
 Computer Operations Supervisor. As such, it is alleged that the Agreement was
 violated in that Claimant performed as a Computer Operations Supervisor
 assuming all responsibilities of that position while paid at a lower rate of
 pay.

 A complete review of the record finds no merit to the Claim at bar. Claimant's job description clearly specifies and includes the work disputed. Claimant is performing the work required as a Computer Control Specialist. There is no evidence in the record that Claimant performs any duties of the Computer Operations Supervisor which are not listed in his own job description, nor is there any evidence of record that Claimant assumes any of the responsibilities of the Computer Operations Supervisor.


In the view of this Board, while some functions overlap, the burden of proof to establish that Claimant assumed the responsibilities and authority inherent in the Supervisor position has not been met.

 As such, this Board finds the Claim to be without merit. The Claimant is fulfillng the obligations of his position assignment upon which his rate of pay is predicated and no violation of the Agreement is supported by any evidence of record that Claimant performed Supervisory duties not listed in his own job description.

        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 not violated.


                        A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy J. r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 28th day of May 1986.

                                                    a.,


                                            ~1C8g0 U ..i