Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 26814
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-25651
88-3
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John B. LaRocco when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad Company



1. Carrier violated the effective Clerks' Agreement when, on June 19, 22, 26, August 5 and 16, 1982, it required and/or permitted employes not covered by such Agreement to perform work at North Bessemer, PA. reserved to employes covered thereby;

2. Carrier shall now compensate the senior available unassigned employe eight (8) hours' pay at the pro rata rate of Clerk North Bessemer (XB Tower) and for all mileage and living allowances provided for by Agreement for each of the above dates."

FINDINGS:

The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.



This case is the consolidation of claims covering five dates in 1982 when the Carrier allegedly assigned work covered by Rule 1 (Scope) to train service employees.

Prior to June 19, 1982, the Carrier maintained a seven day a week, around the clock Clerk-Operator XB Tower position at North Bessemer Yard, a facility jointly operated by the Carrier and the Union Railroad Company. On June 19, 1982, the Carrier eliminated the second trick Clerk-Operator assignment and rearranged the Form 1 Award No. 26814

Page 2 Docket No. CL-25651
88-3

XB Tower. The Organization alleged that when the tower was not manned with an employee covered by the Agreement, the Carrier allowed strangers to the Agreement to clear signals, outbound Carrier and Union Railroad trains.

The issue presented to this Board is whether or not the disputed work was reserved to the XB Tower Clerk-Operator position pursuant to Rule 1. The portion of Rule 1 most pertinent to this dispute is Rule 1(d) which reads:



We recently addressed a similar Scope Rule controversy involving the XB Tower clerical position. In Third Division Award No. 24056, we found insufficient evidence to definitively interpret this intricate Scope Rule. Like the case decided in Award No. 24056, the organization has failed to proffer sufficient, probative evidence that the work in question is covered by the Agreement even if this Board assumes that Rule 1 is a positions and work scope provision. On the other hand, the Carrier has affirmatively demonstrated that the disputed wor of the Chief Train Dispatcher (clearing signals) and the train crews (handling switches and derails). The work in question occurred so infrequently and consumed so little time tha the work, which was clearly related to their primary duties, in accord with the express exception contained in the final clause of Rule 1(d).






                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
      Nancy J. D - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of February 1988.