Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27615
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-27074
 88-3-86-3-124
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Elliott H. Goldstein when award was rendered.
 (Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 (Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Missouri Pacific Railroad Company

1. Carrier violated the Clerks' Agreement when it removed the work of reporting AAR car repair billing, CCIB inspections and FRA Rules and Regulations handling from Clerks' positions at Chicago, Illinois, and assigned these duties to the craft and class of Carmen effective on or about November 19, 1984.

 2. Carrier's action is in violation of the Clerks' Agreement, expressly Rule 1 contained therein
3. Carrier shall now be required to compensate Claimant C.L. McIntosh for eight (8) hours per day, five (5) days per week, Monday through Friday, at rate of pay of position of Mechanical clerk job rated $106.08 per day effective November 19, 1984, until corrected."

 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 employees 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.

As Third Party in Interest, the Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States and Canada was advised of the nendency of this dispute, but chose not to file a Submission with the Division.

 The instant dispute was precipitated when Carrier, in September, 1984, implemented a new computerized billing system for repairs made to freight cars. Prior to this time, Carrier utilized a three-step procedure in billing foreign railroads and private car owners for repairs made to freight cars by Carrier Carmen. First, the Carman who had repaired the car would record the car number and type o Form 1 Award No. 27615
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-27074

the Carman would give the completed 2620-4 Form to another Carman identified as the "AAR Write-Up Man." This Carman would transfer the information from the 2620-4 to a two (2) carbon Form 25273. All the information on the 25273 was completed by a Carman with the exception of the column marked "Net Charge." The process was completed when the AAR Write-Up Man gave the original copy of Form 25273 to a clerical employee, who inserted the net charges on the form and then entered all the information into Carrier's Central Computer System by means of a Cathode Ray Tube.

 As of September, 1984, the computer was programmed to automatically add the charges for repairs made to cars, and the computer printout of this information serves as th Carmen in the yards still complete the Form 2620-4 when repairs are made. This form is still returned to an AAR Write-Up Man. Now, however, instead of copying the information from the Form 2620-4 onto a Form 25273, the AAR Write-Up Man enters the same informa the computer automatically applies the charges and generates a bill.

 As a result of the implementation of this new system, the Organization filed a claim alleging a viol effective March 1, 1973. The Organization argues that Carrier violated the Agreement when it permitted Carmen, employees not covered under the Scope of the Agreement, to report the AAR car repair billing information directly to Carrier's Central Computer System instead of turning over the Form 2620-4 to the clerk to transmit.

 Carrier denies any violation of the Agreement and asserts that Carmen are doing the same work they have always done, but instead of utilizing paper and pencil, a computer terminal is used. It maintains that Carmen are not doing clerical work because the work once done by clerical employees, i.e., billing, has been eliminated.

 The Board recognizes that the issue here is viewed very differently by the parties. The Organization stresses the use of the computer system to directly input car repair i opposed to paper form. Both parties have cited well-reasoned precedent awards which have reached diametrically opposite results.

 Review of the record demonstrates that the assignment of work conflict arose because the computer not only replaced the 25273 form, which was Carmen's work, but also rendered it unnecessary for clerical workers to compute and enter billing information, since that information was automatically provided by computer.

 The record further discloses that when a Carman sits down at the computer keyboard, he keys in infor have marked on a 25273 form. The Carman obtains the car repair information from the same source, the 2620-4 form, just as he did before, and he does not fill out any information concerning billing, nor did he do so prior to the Carrier's implementation of the ne Form 1 Award No. 27615
 Page 3 Docket No. CL-27074
 88-3-86-3-124

 Under these circumstances, we are convinced that, in part, the new computerized system is a revised method for reporting car repair information. As such, the modification in the methodology used to accomplish a particular task does not operate to remove the work from the craft and class of employees who have performed the work in the past so long as the substance and purpose of the work is conserved. See Public Law Board No. 3031, Award No. 1.

 In Public Law Board No. 3735, Award No. 1, the Board cogently set forth the reasoning which this Board deems should be applied with similar force herein:

We are of the view that the foregoing discussion goes to what is really the crux of this case. When the Carman enters his car repair information into the computer, he is performing work which clearly belongs to the Carmen craft. As the record indicates, Carmen are assigned to record car repair information because they un car at their particular shop. To sustain the position of the Organization in this dispute would amount to a de facto transfer or assignment of work that has traditionally been performed by Carmen to the Clerks' Organization.

 It is true, as the Organization points out, that in recording their car repair information mechanically on the keyboard of the CRT, Carmen now perform work which was in function of the Clerks' duties, which was to provide billing information, is now performed, not by the Carmen, but as an automatic function within the computer itself. In that regard, we disagree with the conclusions reached in Third Divi- sion Award 26773 werein it is stated, "While related to the duties of Carmen, the billing is not Carmen's duties and the purpose of their work has changed from recordkeeping to billing." This Board is of the opinion that the billing work has been eliminated by the use of the computer, not transferred, and therefore no violation of a Scope Rule can result. Moreover, to the extent that Carmen now enter their car repair data into the computer rather than on paper, we find that the substance of that work, based as it is on the information
 Form 1 Award No. 27615
 Page 4 Docket No. CL-27074
 88-3-86-3-124

 from Form 2620-4, is Carmen's work. Here, a clerical step has been eliminated, and it is well-established that no scope clause violation can result. See, Public Law Board No. 2470, Award No. 59 and Third Division Award 22832.

        Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy J. rr - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of November 1988.

LABOR MEMBER'S DISSENT TO

AWARD 27615, DOCKET CL-27074

(REFEREE GOLDSTEIN)


The Majority opinion has erred in It's decision, which is contrary to the weighted authority within the industry. Its reasoning is based upon the following:

 "It is true, as the Organization points out, that in recording their car repair information mechanically on the keyboard of the CRT, Carmen now perform work which was in the past performed by the Clerks. However, the core function of the Clerks' duties, which was to provide billing information, is now performed, not by the Carmen, but as an automatic function within the computer itself. In that regard, we disagree with the conclusions reached in Third Division Award 26773, Wherein it is stated, "While related to the duties of Carmen, the billing is not Carmen's duties and the purpose of their work has changed from recordkeeping to billing." This Board is of the opinion that the billing work has been eliminated by the use of the computer, not transferred, and therefore no violation of a Scope Rule can result..." We would suggest that the Majority contridicts itself and has failed to properly consider the full record. In the first sentence it begins by stating that the Organization is correct that Carmen are now doing clerical work and then proceeds to tell us in the next breath that the work has been eliminated. Either the work was eliminated or it was transferred. It cannot be both. The Majority attempts to draw a distinction between the billing function and the entering of car repair data. In essence they assert that the Carmen enter car repair data information into the computer and then the computer automatically does the former clerical billing. The flaw in that theory is it is contrary to the record; a record which the Carrier never refuted while the case was o the property. The organization repeatedly stated that the billing was not eliminated, but was transferred. They pointed out that
 if the work had been eliminated there would be no need to assign t work by bulletin to Carmen. The Majority has simply decided to ignore Employes Exhibit No. 1 and Carrier's Exhibit "D" which was a Carriers Bulletin of January 8, 1985, for Carmen vacancy at Chicago, I1. That bulletin stated that the primary duties of the position were as follows:

    "Prepare original record of repairs for AAR billing. Input

    of AAR billing into computer from original record of repairs

    for all cars repaired"

It is clear from aforementioned that after the abolishment of the clerical positions in dispute one of the primary functions of the Carmen position became the former clerical work. To argue differently is contrary to the record. It should be pointed out that when asked to intervene as a Third Party the Carmen declined It is logical to assume they declined on the basis that they knew that the work in dispute belonged to the Clerks.
 Award 27615 incorrectly disagrees with prior Award 26773 which ruled in a opposite manner. We believe if the Majority had paid closer attention to the record presented it would not have formulated a contrary opinion, but instead would have followed the wiser dictates of Award 25934, 26452, 26507, 26773 and 26942 to name just a few.
 Award 27615 carries no precedential value and is palpably wrong.

                                William R. Miller, Labor Member


                                Date: December 2, 1988

CARRIER MEMBERS' RESPONSE

TO

LABOR MEMBER'S DISSENT

IN

AWARD 27615, DOCKET CL-27074

(Referee Goldstein)


The reasoning contained in the Majority decision is so clear,and correct, that further exposition here could not improve upon it. However, inasmuch as the Organization's Dissent has quoted only a part of the paragraph of the Award setting forth the rationale of the Majority, we believe it appropriate to set forth the remaining portion. The Board stated:

        "Moreover, to the extent that Carmen now enter their car repair data into the computer rather than on paper, we find the substance of that work, based as it is on the information from Form 2620-4, is Carmen's work. Here, a clerical step has been eliminated, and it is well-established that no scope clause violation can result. See Public Law Board No. 2470, Award No. 59 and Third Division Award 22832."


    In addition to the two Awards cited in the portion of the Majority decision

above-quoted, see, also, Third Division Awards: 25902, 25693, 23458, 22140, 21572,
 21475, 19400, 19071, 14538, 13215.
 The Majority Award is palpably correct.
 v
 r

                                          , V~agg 00 0 X*-