(American Train Dispatchers Association
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company

(a) The Atchison, Topeka 6 Santa Fe Railway Company (Carrier) violated its Train Dispatchers' schedu but not limited to Article I, Sections 1(b) and 1(c) thereof as amended effective April 1, 1981, whe position 6518 to perform work related to the duties exclusively reserved to Chief and Assistant Chief Train Dispatchers under the provisions of said Section 1(b), on each of th 1982.

 (b) Because of said violations, the Carrier shall now compensate Claimant J. J. Jelinek, a regular assigned incumbent of trick train dispatcher position 6518 and who was required to perform the work referred to in paragraph (a) above, one (1) d Train Dispatcher for each of the above dates."

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant herein was the occupant of a Relief Train Dis
 patcher position on the dates involved in this dispute.
 Part of his assignment was to relieve Position 6518 (Train Dispatcher) from
 11:45 P.M. to 7:45 A.M. on Thursday and Friday. According to Carrier, and
 without contradiction by the Organiztion, for a period of several years
 certain report work had been accomplished by the incumbent of Position 6518.
 Subsequently, at an unspecified date, Carrier established the position of
 Assistant Chief Train Dispatcher No. 6520 on the 3rd Trick, who took over the
 preparation of the reports formerly handled by Train Dispatcher Position No.
 6518. Those reports, which are the crux of the dispute are: the 5:00 A.M.
 Yard Report; Deadhead Crews and Held Away from Home Terminal Report; 7:00 A.M.
 Potash Report; Local Overtime Report; 7:00 A.M. Grain Report and Tonnage
 Report by the Train Dispatcher. On April 23, 1982, the Assistant Chief Train
 Dispatcher Position No. 6520 was abolished (due to a decline in business,
 according to Carrier) and the report preparation work reverted to the
 incumbents of Dispatcher Positions Nos. 6518 and 6514. Further, Claimant
 herein, as the relief for Position 6518 performed the report preparation on
 the two nights of the assignment. The Claims filed herein were for the nights
 Claimant relieved the two positions on their rest days; the incumbents of the
 two positions did not file Claims for the same work during their regular tours


of duty. The Assistant Chief Dispatcher Position No. 6520 was reestablished June 24, 1982, and starting July 29, 1982, the incumbent of that position again began to prepare the reports in question.

        Article I, Sections 1-b, 1-c provide as follows:


        "Section 1-b. Positions of Chief and Assistant Chief Train Dispatchers shall include positions, the duties of which are to be responsible for the supervision of trains on a Division or other assigned territory; the supervision of train dispatchers and other similar employes; the supervision of the movement of power and equipment thereto; and to perform related work.


        Section 1-c. Positions of trick train dispatchers shall include positions, the duties of which are to be responsible for the movement of trains by train ord Section 1-d), such as electronic equipment and/or other technological methods, where required. Trick train dispatchers positions shall supervise forces empl handling train orders, keep necessary records incident thereto, and perform related work. It is understood that this definition does not preclude the performance of work defined as that of trick train dispatcher by Chief and Assistant Chief Train Dispatchers."


In addition, the parties entered into a letter of understanding, dated March 30, 1981, which provided in pertinent part:

      "During negotiations leading up to the revised Scope Rule of the September 1, 1949 Agreement, it was agreed that operating practices in existence prior to the effective date of the revised Scope Rule (April 1 considered to be in conformity with the revised Scope Rule. Claims covering such practices will therefore not be filed or progressed. Operating practices implemented in the future at other locations may not, in the revised Scope Rule in which event the Organization may, if it so desires, file claim.


      If the above correctly outlines our understanding and agreement, please so indicate by affixing your signature in the space provided hereon."

                      Award Number 26292 Page 3

                      Docket Number TD-26031


The Organization argues that the Carrier failed to properly classify Train Dispatcher Position No. 6518 when it abolished the Assistant Chief Train Dispatcher position and added the functions of the Assistant Chief's position to that of the Train Dispatcher. This was a violation of Section 1-b and 1-c of Article I of the Agreement, according to the Organization. It is urged further that the work in question (the reports listed supra) had been accomplished by the Assistant signed, April 1, 1981, and continued to be performed in that manner until the position was abolished and the work added to Train Dispatcher Position 6518 without "proper classification and compensation." It is also argued that the Claim is totally sanctioned by the letter of understanding dated March 30, 1981. As an added point, the organization insists that the Scope Rule is clear, precise and unambiguous, rather than being general and vague as contended by Carrier. In supp Third Division Award 16556 and Award No. 1 of Public Law Board No. 588 which dealt with identical language.

 Carrier's position is essentially that the work in question is part of the normal duties of Trick Train Dispatchers, as specified in Section 1-c. Further, other Train Dispatchers, and in particular the regular incumbents of Positions 6514 and 6518, perform the same duties without complaint or Claim. This in itself, according to Carrier, is an admission that this Claim is not meritorious. In addition, Carrier asserts that the identical complained-of work is being performed.throughout the system by Trick Train Dispatchers as well as clerical employees who are not even under the Agreement. With respect to the letter of understanding of March 30, 1981, Carrier notes that it specifically provides that p revised Scope Rule are permitted to continue. Carrier points out that the reports have been prepared Train Dispatchers as well as clerical employes and this fact has not been disputed by the Organizati
As the Board views this dispute, the pivotal question is whether there is either language in the Scope Rule or practice to support the Claim. With respect to the Scope Rule the only applicable language in Section 1-b is the phrase "related work" and similarly in Section 1-c "related work" as well as "keep necessary records ...." The Organization has argued that the term "related work" with respect to the Assistant Chief Train Dispatchers functions is relevant; there is reliance, in part, by the Organization on this Board's Third Division Award 11013, in which we stated, in part:

      "The pivotal question, therefore, is whether the additional work given to the Dispatchers at Buf related to their work as Dispatchers, under the Agreement. The phrase 'and to perform related work' Article 1 (b) of the Agreement applies to the primary responsibility of Trick Train Dispatchers, which under the Agreement is to move trains by train orders or otherwise. The term, 'related work' is inexact and can

                      Award Number 26292 Page 4

                      Docket Number TD-26031


        be given meaning only when considered in the light of practice on this property at the place and under the circumstances in which the work is performed. There seems to be no question that before the consolidation ....Supervisory Dispatchers were responsible for and did perform work which the Employes allege (without contradiction by the Carrier) was transferred to them. Accordingly, the only meaningful practice available to determine if the additional work required of the Dispatcher is 'related work' under the Agreement is work was not related to the responsibilities of Trick Train Dispatchers under the Agreement."


The case at bar can be clearly distinguished, on a factual basis, from that quoted above. In this dispute the past practice is that the work had been accomplished in the past by both Supervisory and non-Supervisory personnel and also by clerical forces. Thus, there is no practice to support the Organization's interpretation. In addition, the language of the Scope Rule offers no comfort to the Organization since the records prepared in this dispute are not specifically or even remotely covered by the language of 1-b or 1-c. In sum, the Organization has not borne its burden of proof: there is no entitlement to the work demonstrated either by practice or the language of the Scope Rule.

        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.

                      Award Number 26292 Page 5

                      Docket Number TD-26031


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        ancy J. r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 24th day of April 1987.