Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27581
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-26811
 88-3-86-3-23
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Edward L. Suntrup when award was rendered.
 (Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company

1. Carrier violated and continues to violate the effective Clerks' Agreement when on and after August 27, 1984, it required and/or permitted employee not covered thereby to perform work of abolished clerical positions, which work is reserved to employes covered by such agreement.

 2. Carrier shall now compensate the senior available employes, furloughed in preference, for eight ( unassigned, or at the time and one-half rate if regularly assigned, for each date commencing August 27, 1984, and continuing thereafter that a like violation occurs."

 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.

In August 1984, the Carrier issued three Bulletins abolishing clerks' positions on the afternoon, midnight and relief turns at the Gary Maintenance of Way Department. This left only one day turn Clerks' position open at that facility, five days a week. The Organization thereafter sent correspondence to the Carrier's Chief Engineer with request for information about "which employees (would) absorb the clerical duties" of the abolished positions. In his response, the Chief Engineer states the following:
 Form 1 Award No. 27581
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-26811
 88-3-86-3-23
 Gary Works no longer utilize EJ&E track forces to
 exclusively install and maintain tracks within the
 plant. This type of work, and others, is let out for
 bid to independent contractors. Because of our costs
 we are non-competitive. With the loss of track work,
 together with dramatic decline in business, M. of W.
 forces will be reduced by 56%. As of September 1, 1984
 there will be one five (5) man track gang assigned to
 ' the afternoon turn, and one five (5) man gang assigned



In October 1984, the Organization filed a Claim alleging that "on virtually every turn where a clerk is not maintained supervisors in the M. of W. Department and others have pe cite in their entirety" of the violations allegedly taking place, it gave examples of when calls were made to trackmen in September of 1984 by management employees J. Beatz a on two different days by the former. The Claim continues that supervisors "maintain on a continuous basis the log of track work performed and calls for service on track." The Claim also states that the Carrier had eliminated no supevisory positions despite its Claim that there was a decline in business.






Form 1 Award No. 27581
 Page 3 Docket No. CL-26811
 88-3-86-3-23

 In its denial of this Claim the Carrier states that the Claim is improper since no Claimants were specifically identified. With respect to the examples cited by the Organizat Carrier states that it disagrees with the facts except for the following. On September 12 and 13, 1984, Supervisor Beatz did place calls to a "specific number of track employees and ....called a bridge tender." The Carrier goes on to say, however, that such does not require "any measurable skill and the Carrier cannot afford to employ people to be available merely to make occasional telephone calls." T Claim. The Carrier states the following about this memo:

Did this same Supervisor maintain on a continuous basis a log of track work performed and calls for service on track as the original Claim alleges? The Carrier officer responds that Supervisors have historically maintained their own notes or log on such matters but he had "examined the official records and (he is) unable to identify any entries on those documents as being done by a Supervisor." The officer states that he is further assured that clerks do keep records although they may use information "provided by a supervisor's notes" which is no violation, in his estimation.

 Did this same Supervisor prepare "labor dailies on September 12 and 13, 1984"? The officer states that he finds this charge to be ambiguous since a Supervisor can contribute information or make notes on dailies which are then completed by a Clerk but that the clerical function is to finish the daily in final form. According to information available, the officer states that this is the way it was done as far as he can determine.
 Form 1 Award No. 27581
 Page 4 Docket No. CL-26811
 88-3-86-3-23

 Lastly the Carrier disputes the contention of the Organization, on factual grounds, with respect to lay-off of supervisory personnel. The Carrier states that the Gary Division has reduced supervisor positions as well as Maintenance of Way positions. This a matter of record.

 On appeal, the Organization cites more specific examples of calls made to trackmen, crane operators and so on by other Supervisors besides Supervisor Beatz (by Superv This information is taken from the record. The General Chairman also cites worklog entries made in September by Supervisors Beatz and Valtierra although he notes that notations of items which are written down when no clerk is on duty "are entered later by clerks". Lastly, he states that in September, on a number of different days Supervisors Beatz and Gurn entered data related to time worked, and compensation, on the labor report.

 Lastly, the Carrier argues that there has been no violation of the Scope Rule of the Agreement since it is a general rule and no exclusivity over the work in question has been shown. It is also argues _de minimus with respect to the work performed.

 The Board has studied the full record before it. The instant Claim cannot be dismissed on procedural grounds because of unnamed Claimants. The records of the Carrier make the incumbents of the original three positions easily identifiable for purposes of the Claim at bar. Numerous Awards have been issued by this and other Divisions of the Board which are consistent with such conclusion (Third Division Awards 10567, 12299, 2143, 25183; also Fourth Division Awards 1835, 2032, 3184). The Carrier has also argued that the Organization's submission co Division Awards 20841, 21394, 21463; Fourth Division Awards 4132, 4135, 4137). The Board must conclude that this is true although the Board cannot accept the Carrier's assertion that all information found in Organization's Exhibit K be eliminated from the record since these are the records cited, in part, of the alleged violations under scrutiny here. These records were cited on property by the Organization in its Claim and appeals, and the Carrier admitted in its January 16, 1985, correspondence that the organization was in possession of such. Such is properly before the Board under title of evidence.

 On the merits, the Claim alleges a violation of the Agreement ScopeRule. The Board must conclude "position and work" rule and as such no need for exclusivity is necessary (See Third Division Awards 25242, 25918, 26452). The organization must only show that the disputed work allegedly done by another craft or Supervisor or a subcontractor is work whic party the burden of such proof falls on the Organization (Second Division Awards 5526, 6954; Third Division Awards 15670, 25575; Fourth Division Awards 3379, 3482).
 Form 1 Award No. 27581
 Page 5 Docket No. CL-26811
 88-3-86-3-23
made in the work log by Supervision after the positions were abolished repre
 sented violations of the Agreement. In correspondence to the Carrier the or
 ganization admitted that such notations are later entered into the log by the
 (presumably, day) Clerk. The same conclusion is warranted for log information
 of track work. The organization has insufficiently documented for the Board
 that the Carrier's position on this issue is incorrect when it states Super
 visors have historically maintained their own notes which are, granted, used
 by Clerks later for the record. There has been insufficient showing here that
 supervisors infringed upon clerical work in this respect. The question of
 Clerks placing calls to track employees, however, is a different matter. When
 the three positions were abolished the record supports that supervisory employ
 ees on the abolished shifts did make calls which were formerly made by cleri
 cal forces. The Carrier further admits that a number of the directives issued
 by the notice in August 1984, addressed this question, and that it decided to
 do this for economic reasons. The Carrier also states that this was permiss
 ible under de minimus doctrine. The Board must first of all observe that tak
 ing work away from the craft under a Rule of the type in question uniquely for
 alleged economic reasons are insufficient grounds for doing so (See Third
 Division Awards 24810, 25242). The Carrier's argument based on de minimus is
 found in the single statement it makes prior to the docketing of this case
 before the Board wherein it claims that the work at issue is not reserved to
 clerical employees "in that it was incidental to the involved track Super
 visors' regular duties and took less than 5 minutes per day to perform." The
 Board has ruled on many occasions that assertions are no substitute for proof
 under substantial evidence criteria (See Consol. Ed. Co. vs Labor Board 305
 U.S. 197, 229). Since the Carrier offers no evidence on property to support
 either its de minimus position nor its argument related to the incidental na
 ture of the work for Supervision such arguments, notwithstanding other consid
 erations relative to their validity in this case, must be dismissed.

 The factual issue on merits to be resolved by the Board is the extent to which the Agreement was violated when Supervision, in lieu of Clerks, made calls to track employees. The original Claim filed by the Organization and his appeal on property show ten (10) days when violations allegedly took place. These dates are September 13; 15-19; 21-23; 25 and 27, 1984. In its submission, based on documents which the Carrier stated on property were furnished to the organizati violations up to March 17, 1985. The original Claims filed on October 5, 1984, cite "the following dates" which are the original ten (10) days cited above. While the Board has ruled above that the data found in Organization Exhibit K are acceptable as evidence this must be reasonably understood as evidence to support the Claims actually made on property but not as evidence to add to relief when framing a submission to this Board. Likewise the continuing Claim relief reque must be dismissed. Such is not consistent with the original Claim filed on property. The Board finds it proper to rule in this manner even though, inexplicably, both the Carri Form 1 Award No. 27581
 Page 6 Docket No. CL-26811
 88-3-86-3-23

 It is unclear to the Board how much time was involved when the calls were made on the ten (10) days in question although it is inclined to conclude that it was more than the Carrier states, but less than eight (8) hours per day. The Board must conclude that a reasonable, if arbitrary, compromise on these matters is four (4) hours per day.

 The senior furloughed employees available for the positions shall each be paid, therefore, four (4) hours per day for each of the ten (10) days cited in the foregoing. They shall be paid straight-time rate if they were on furlough at the time of the violations, and at time and one half if on assignment at the time of the


        Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy J. rev - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of September 1988.