(American Train Dispatchers Association
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Consolidated Rail Corporation

(a) The Consolidated Rail Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Carrier' or 'Conrail') violated Rules 1(a) and 1(b)1, 2 and 3 of its Train Dispatchers' schedule working conditions agreement when it permitted and/or required an employee titled 'Dispatcher Assistant' to perform duties of Assistant Chief Dispatcher a about April 1, 1982 and dates subsequent thereto.

 (b) Because of said violation, the Carrier shall now compensate the incumbent of 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM - 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM and 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM positions of Dispatcher Assistant at the Assistant Chief Dispatcher rate of pay instead of Dispatcher Assistant rate, in the Harrisburg, Pa. office on and after July 3, 1982.

 (c) In the event the incumbent did not perform duty on and after July 3, 1982, the employee performing duty on the Dispatcher Assistant position on any of these dates shall be paid at the Assistant Chief Dispatcher rate instead of Dispatcher Assist
(d) Eligible individual Claimants entitled to the compensation requested in paragraphs (b) and/o be determined by a joint check thereof.








                    Docket Number TD-25709


OPINION OF BOARD: While the original Claim was slightly vague, the Organiza
 tion alleges that the Carrier improperly assigned Assistant
 Chief Dispatcher and (Trick) Train Dispatcher work to Dispatcher Assistants at
 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania commencing on April 1, 1982. The continuing Claim,
 which was filed on August 31, 1982, seeks compensation on behalf of the occu
 pants of the four Harrisburg Dispatcher Assistant positions for the period sub
 sequent to July 3, 1982.

 According to the Organization, the Carrier directed the Dispatcher Assistants to enter certain train information into the Carrier's computerized Transportation Management System (TMS). The Organization argues that the data entry work is a function related to Assistant Chief Dispatcher work within the meaning of the last phrase of Rule 1(b)1. Also, the Organization avers that the disputed work is exclusively reserved to Trick Dispatchers by Rule 1(b)2. The latter provision expressly provides that Trick Dispatchers shall ...keep necessary records ...and ...perform related work." The Organization submitted printed and handwritten Carrier instructions ostensibly showing that Dispatcher Assistants are requi The Organization relies on the Note to Rule 1(b) which reads:

          "The foregoing shall not operate to restrict the performance of work as between the respective classes herein defined, but the duties of these classes may not be performed by officers or other employees. The compensation of employees performing the work of two or more of the classes herein defined shall be that of the highest rated class of the work which they perform."


The Organization therefore concludes that Dispatcher Assistants are entitled to the higher pay rate of either the Assistant Chief Dispatcher class or the Trick Dispatcher class whenever the Dispatcher Assistant performed work related to the duties expressly enumerated in Rules 1(b)1 and 1(b)2.

 Characterizing the disputed work as copying and entering train consist data, the Carrier contend Assistant Chief Train Dispatcher that are related to the duties defined in this Agreement." The Carrier argues that, by definition, Dispatcher Assistants may perform tasks rel adopts the Organization's unreasonable Interpretation of Rule 1, the Dispatcher Assistant pay rate w out that, unlike Rules 1(b)1 and 1(b)2, the words, "these classes" does not appear in Rule 1(b)3. By inference, the Carrier concludes that since the Rule 1(b) Note refers to work of the respective classes, Dispatcher Assistants are not a class within the purview of the Note.
                    Award Number 26312 Page 3

                    Docket Number TD-25709


At the onset, this Board realizes that both parties have placed strained interpretations on Rule 1. Under the Carrier's interpretation, Dispatcher Assistants would higher rated position per the Rule 1(b) Note. Thus, the Note would apply only to the classes set forth in Rules 1(b)1 and 1(b)2. While the Carrier's interpretation of the Scope R broad interpretation of Rule 1(b) that Dispatcher Assistants would almost always be performing work within the ambit of Assistant Chief and Trick Dispatcher classes. Thus, th duties. This Board must carefully analyze the disputed work to determine if the Dispatcher Assistants actually assumed the fundamental functions of another class (which triggers their entitlement to a higher rate) or if they merely helped the higher classes execute their duties.

 Aside from the Organization's bare assertion, the record does not contain any evidence proving t express duties and responsibilities of either an Assistant Chief Dispatcher or a Trick Dispatcher. Indeed, the record lacks any evidence that the Dispatcher Assistants exclusively operate any of the TMS formats. The handwritten TMS instructions explicitly explain that Dispatcher Assistants are to help higher rated Dispatchers with their recordkeeping duties. To prove a contract violation, the organization m to support its allegations. Third Division Award No. 25575. In this particular case, the Organizatio
        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 Fmployes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Fmployes 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 26312 Page 4

                    Docket Number TD-25709


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


i Attest:
        Nancy J. v - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 13th day of May 1987.