Form I NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28097
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-27063
 89-3-86-3-302
 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:
 (Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company

1. Carrier violated and continues to violate the effective Clerks' Agreement when on or about December 3, 1984, and thereafter, it required and/or permitted employes not covered by the scope thereof to operate data processing devices; work which is reserved to employes covered by such agreement;

 2. Carrier shall compensate the senior furloughed employes in Seniority District No. 2 eight (8) hours' pay at the straight time rate of a computer operator position for December 3, 1984, and for each and every day 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.

This dispute involves the assignment of certain Management employes not covered by the scope of the Agreement to operate a Radio Shack MicroComputer (personal computer) 3, 1984. Carrier maintains that the installation of the PC operated by Management personnel did not transfer work from Computer Operator positions to employees not covered under the Scope Rule. It insists that the installation of a labor-saving device which has simply changed the manual method of preparing statistical analysi Accordingly, it asks that the Claim be denied.
 Form 1 Award No. 28097
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-27063
 89-3-86-3-302

 The organization alleges that clerical employees have historically performed all productive work in connection with the mechanical and electronic processing of data. It maintains that such work remains under the exclusive jurisdiction of clerical employees unless it is removed during the negotiation process. Accordingly, it asks that the senior furloughed employee be compensated one day's pay for D
Except as to dates and the particulars of the work involved, this dispute is the same as that considered in Third Division Award 27098. Evidence presented to this Boa performs work which formerly was done manually. In the past, a pencil, paper, and calculator were used by Management employees to prepare statistical analysis. At the present tim the same work. What has occurred in this case was the normal consequence of the installation of a labor-saving device. This does not violate the Scope Rule of the Agreement. As such, the Board reaches the same conclusion as in Award 27098, based on the same reasoning.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest: ,
        Nancy J.,,KPK- Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 11th day of September 1989.
              LABOR MEMBER'S DISSENT TO

              AWARD N0. 28097, DOCKET CL-27063

              (REFEREE SCHEINMAN)

Suffice it is to say that the Majority Opinion has erred in it's decision to deny when it states:

          "As such, the Board reaches the same conclusion as in

    Third Division Award 27098, based on the same reasoning."

The problem with the aforementioned is that Award 27098 lacked logical reasoning and was based upon unsubstantiated assertions. Thus it follows we Dissent to Award 28097 because it has compounded the prior Award's error.

    Award 28097 is palably wrong and carries no precedential value.


                                      William R. Miller

                                      Labor Member


                                      September 19, 1989

                                      Date