Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27896
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-26494
 89-3-85-3-222
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Martin F. Scheinman when award was rendered.
 (Transportation Communications International Union
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad Company

1. Carrier violated the effective Clerks' Agreement when, on or about February 1984, it removed work in connection with the preparation of the monthly 'Internal Short Form Income Statement' from covered employes and assigned it to employes not covered by such Agreement.

 2. Carrier shall now return this work to employes covered by the Agreement and shall compensate Ms. J. M. Hoy, **Stenographer, Cost Section, and/or her successor or successors in interest; namely, any other employe who is the occupant of such position, one hour's pay at the time and one-half rate of her position for the month of February 1984, and for each and every month 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.

The Organization alleges in this claim that Carrier has violated the Scope Rule of the Agreement. It arose after Carrier initiated use of microcomputers in the preparati 1984. Prior to this change, the preparation of reports in question was performed manually by non-TCU report in pencil form, it was given to the stenographer for typing. As a result of the use of the micro-computers, the report is now automatically generated; and thus eliminates the typing performed by the stenographer.

 The Organization argues that the Scope Rule reserves to covered employees all clerical work coming within the Scope of the Agreement and that the work here falls within that Scope. Moreover, the Organization asserts
 Form 1 Award No. 27896
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-26494
 89-3-85-3-222

 that the work has been historically performed exclusively by clerical employees and therefore, m employees and assigned to others.

 In the Organization's view, the clerical function of printing the report remains.

 In response, Carrier contended that the utilization of microcomputers to do work previously perf not represent a violation of the Agreement. It further argues that the work was merely eliminated due to mechanization and the Scope Rule was not violated. Additionally, Carrie advantage of efficiencies that result from the use of improved technology, as evidenced by this case. It further argues that there was no transfer of work and no positions were abolished as a result of the use of micro-computers. The only change that has been made is that the micro-computer assembles and prints the final report based on data furnished by the analyst..

 The record is clear in this instance, that Carrier has violated the language of the Scope Rule, although Carrier has the right to take advantage of efficiencies that are available as a result of technological improvement.
Here, even through use of the micro-computer, has provided efficiencies, there remains the cleri now stored on a disc rather than in the typewriter does not change the nature of the clerical work. Accordingly, this clerical function must continue to be performed by TCU represented employees.

 As to the remedy for this violation, although no position was eliminated as the result of the im claim is sustained to one (1) hour's pay at the overtime rate for each month that this work occurred from February 1984.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        ancy J. e - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of May 1989.