Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27285
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-27283
88-3-86-3-381
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John E. Cloney when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-10107) that:

(1) Carrier violated the intent and provisions of the current Clerks' Agreement at Fort Carson, Colorado on May 23, 1985 by failing and/or refusing to allow an employe covered by the Agreement to sign Bills of Lading, and

(2) Carrier shall now pay Mr. G. J. Krizek a minimum three hour call, pro rata Cashier rate for May 23, 1985 as result of this violation, and

(3) Upon expiration of 60 days from the original date of submission, Carrier shall also pay 15% per annum, interest on the amounts claimed."

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.

Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

Claimant is assigned to an Interchange Clerk Position at Pueblo, Colorado. On May 10, 1985, the Agent-Cashier Position No. 6011 at Colorado Springs, Colorado, was abolished. Before being abolished, the position accepted and signed Bills of Lading from the Transportation Office at Fort Carson, Colorado. Fort Carson is approximately 45 miles from Pueblo.
Form 1 Award No. 27285
Page 2 Docket No. CL-27283
88-3-86-3-381
On May 23, 1985, a Trainmaster signed two Bills of Lading from the
Fort Carson Transportation Office. The Trainmaster is not covered by the
Agreement.

Rule 1, the Scope Rule, provides:

"1-A These rules shall govern the hours, compensation, and working conditions of all employees engaged in the work of the craft or class of Clerical, Office, Station, Storehouse Tower and Telegraph Service Employes as such craft is, or may be, defined by the National Mediation Board. Officers or employes not covered by this Agreement shall not be permitted to perform any work or function belonging to the craft or class here represented which is not directly and immediately linked to and an integral part of their regular duties, except by agreement between the parties signatory hereto.

1-B Positions outlined below are generally representative of those within the craft or class:

Clerical workers and/or machine operators, station agents, manager-wire chiefs, wire chiefs, assistant wire chiefs, student wire chiefs, communication traffic controllers, towermen, levermen, block operators, car distributors, train order clerks, drawbridgetenders and boat dispatchers.

Other office and station employes such as assorters, office boys, messengers, station helpers, baggage and parcel room employes, train and engine crew callers, switchboard operators and operators of certain office or station appliances.

Elevator operators, janitors, station, platform, warehouse, transfer, storeroom, stock room material handler or truckers, and others similarly employed."

Form 1 Award No. 27285
Page 3 Docket No. CL-27283
88-3-86-3-381

Rule 2 - Grades of Work, provides in part:

"2-E Positions or work within Rule 1-SCOPE of this

Agreement belong to the employes covered

thereby and nothing in this Agreement shall be

construed to permit the removal of such

positions or work from the application of the

rules of the agreement.

2-F When a position covered by this Agreement is

abolished, the work assigned to same which

remains to be performed will be reassigned to

other positions covered by this Agreement,

unless such reassignment of work would

infringe upon the rights of other employes."

The Organization argues that as the incumbent of Position No. 6011

signed the Fort Carson Bills of Lading before that position was abolished,
Rule 2-F requires that work to be assigned to a position covered by the Agree
ment. Accordingly, Carrier should have instructed the Transportation Officer
to mail the Bills of Lading to Pueblo for signature. The Organization des
cribes Rule 2-F as the "bedrock" of the claim and asserts the Rule was nego
tiated to prevent the work of covered employees from being eroded.

On September 30, 1985, in responding to the claim, Carrier asserted that signing Bills of Lading has never been performed exclusively by clerical employees and referred to various other classes of employees who sign such bills on a regular basis.

In reply to Carrier's position that the Scope Rule is general and therefore proof of exclusivity is necessary, the Organization contends it is untenable to argue that work assigned to a position covered by Rule 1 is not work covered by Rule 1. As the signing of Bills of Lading was work within Rule 1, the signing of Bills of Lading is reserved to employees covered by the Agreement by virtue of Rule 2-E and Rule 2-F and there is no need to show exclusivity according to the Organization.

As we read Rule 2-E it protects covered employees with reference to work falling within Rule 1, but it does not enlarge Rule 1 or secure to covered employees work not otherwise within its scope. Rule 1 is general and Rule 2 does not eliminate the need for proof of exclusivity.

In PLB 4157, Award 2 which dealt with this same Rule, it was concluded:
Form I Award No. 27285
Page 4 Docket No. CL-27283
88-3-86-3-381
"The application of Rule 2 is predicated, however,
on a premise of proof that the work in question
is indisputably Clerk's work in the first place.
The latter is the focal issue of the instant case
. . . . Such issue is normally framed in the
language of 'exclusivity' or the exclusive right
to perform given work by a given craft under the
protection of that crafts Agreement with a
Carrier."

We believe that analysis is applicable here. Exclusivity has not been shown. Indeed Carrier's contention that these Bills are also signed by other crafts was not challenged on the property. Such lack of challenge is consistent with the Organization position that in view of Rule 2 exclusivity is not a factor. However, as indicated, this Board disagrees.

In view of our determination, the issues raised regarding amounts and type of compensation need not be considered.

A W A R D

Claim denied.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Third Division

Attest:

Nancy J. D9*1* - Executive Secretary

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 12th day of August 1988.