Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28884
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-28711
 91-3-89-3-92
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee George S. Roukis when award was rendered.
 (Transportation Communications International Union
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood

(a) Carrier violated the Agreement at Kansas City, Kansas, beginning September 16, 1987, when it abolished the positions of East Bowl Inventory Clerk, West Bowl Inventory Clerk, and Turner Inventory Clerk and the relief assignments which protect their rest days, permitting and/or requiring Assistant Trainmasters not su routine clerical work; and
Agreement shall now be restored to the employes covered thereby; and -

 *(c) The occupants of said positions at the time of abolishment, and/or senior off-in-force-reduction employe in the event of the occupants' retirement, resignation, or other removal from the employment of the Carrier, shall now be compensated eight (8) hours' pay at the pro rata rate of their positions including subsequent wage increases which otherwise would have occurred, for each work day commencing September 16, 1987, continuing until such violation ceases, in addition to any other compensation received for these dates.

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.
Form 1 Award No. 28884
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-28711
 91-3-89-3-92
 The basic facts of this case are set forth as follows: On September
 4, 1987, Carrier abolished 52 Inventory Clerk positions at the East Bowl, West
 Bowl and Turner sites. The Organization's Division Chairman conversed with
 the Assistant Superintendent on September 29, 1987, and requested the oppor
 tunity to discreetly observe the operations at the aforesaid locations to
 determine the exact distribution of the duties previously performed by the
 Inventory Clerks. The Assistant Superintendent was not amenable to this
 request and thus by letter dated September 30, 1987, the Division Chairman
 apprised the Superintendent of this conversation and reiterated his request to
 conduct such observations. By letter dated October 1, 1987, the Superintend
 ent stated that he would be most happy to meet with the Division Chairman to
 precisely advise him of the disposition of the duties of the abolished posi
 tions. The parties met on October 8, 1987, and discussed the work being per
 formed at the three locations. By letter dated October 14, 1987, and ad
 dressed to the Superintendent, the Division Chairman reviewed in great detail
 the summary of the conference discussions and concluded with the following
 proposal:











The Division Chairman also noted:


The Division Chairman filed a claim dated October 20, 1987, wherein he asserted that Assistant Train by the abolished Inventory Clerk positions. He delineated this work as:
 Form 1 Award No. 28884
 Page 3 Docket No. CL-28711
 91-3-89-3-92
 "1. Making roll-by checks, from preprinted lists of
 involved tracks, on all yard moves within the
 area surrounding their respective areas to as
 certain if cars are in proper sequential order
 in the computer yard inventory.
 2. Correcting the inventory to reflect switching or
 proper sequential order of cars after roll-by
 check utilizing the 'FSS' function (or other
 manipulative commands) of the OX System. Exer
 cising an option of the 'FSS' function to
 transmit lists of completed outbound trains (and
 inter-line transfers) to the Regional Freight
 Office.
 3. Printing advance lists of inbound trains for
 future switching utilizing the 'DTRS' or
 'PRELI$T' functions of the OX System.
 4. Examining the inventory of cars on track by
 either printing the track (utilizing the
 'PRTTRK' or 'DTKK' function) or by utilizing













Form 1 Award No. 28884
 Page 4 Docket No. CL-28711
 91-3-89-3-92

 He charged that Carrier violated Rules 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 14, 25, 32 and 59 of the Controlling Agreement, when Carrier required or permitted Assistant Trainmasters to perform work whi Kansas City. More pointedly, he asserted that Carrier violated Rule 2 when it abolished the positions under claim, removed the work from the scope and operation of the Agreement the Agreement. Rules 2-E and 2-F are referenced as follows:



By letter dated November 1, 1987, the Superintendent responded to the Division Chairman's October 14, 1987, letter and declined the request for a joint check. He wrote in part,

By letter dated December 10, 1987, the Superintendent denied the October 20, 1987, claim and made the following comments:


Form 1 Award No. 28884
 Page 5 Docket No. CL-28711
 91-3-89-3-92
 You were informed that Assistant Trainmaster Its were
 not printing scale tickets via the 'WEIGH' function.
 Also, in regards to your comments in Item 9 con
 cerning switch documents generated via 'WO' command
 you have already filed a claim regarding this matter
 which is on appeal at this time.
 Your argument concerning Rule 2-F is without basis
 account you have misinterpreted said rule."

 This position was rejected by the Division Chairman on January 11, 1988, and a detailed response was submitted by the General Chairman on February 4, 1988. The General Chairman reiterated the basic position advanced by the Division Chairman and referenced observations made by several clerks. He wrote (in pertinent part):






Form 1 Award No. 28884
 Page 6 Docket No. CL-28711
 91-3-89-3-92
 As far as the computer commands or functions
 referred to in your claim, Assistant Trainmaster
 Its system-wide perform these functions daily as
 an integral part of their assigned duties and
 these functions have never belonged exclusively
 to clerks.'
 Nothing could be further from the truth. Case in
 point, Kansas City clerical employee, A.L. Morgan's
 letter of January 21, 1988 (attached) supports the
 facts in this claim and refutes Superintendent Nash's
 contentions. Mr. Horgan's letter discusses the work
 under claim, examines the history of same, and em
 phatically states:
 'Through the past 24 years, this type of work was
 done only by clerkal'
 And such has been the case system-wide. The work
 under claim is clerical in nature, has been tradi
 tionally performed by clerical employees, and can be
 removed from the scope and operation of the Agreement
 only by negotiation."

 By letter dated March 30, 1988, the Carrier denied the General Chairman's February 4, 1988, appeal letter and premised its denial on several considerations. The Scope Rule on include grades or types of work performed by clerks. In effect, Rules 1 and 2 were separate Rules. Further, the Carrier pointed out that in the Organization's March 29, 1984 Sect exclusive right to operate all CRT equipment (without success). The Carrier noted that trainmen and switchmen performed roll-by checks of cars on a systemwide basis and observe whereby train and yard checking and verification be deemed clerical work. (Section 6 Notice of November 30, 1977). It acknowledged that clerks located at Kansas City used the "FSS Command" in the computer to flat switch cars in the computer inventory, but asserted that Assistant Trainmasters I use this command on a systemwide basis and referenced Award 1 of Public Law Board 2555 as precedent authority. The Carrier also took exception to Clerk A. L. Morgan's January 21, 1988 letter and again emphasized that Rule 1 (Scope) was a general Rule. It wrote, in part:
Form 1 Award No. 28884
 Page 7 Docket No. CL-28711
 91-3-89-3-92
 statement that the work Mr. Morgan described as
 having been performed 'only by clerks' is the case
 system-wide, is totally false and you are well aware
 of this. Such work has been performed by clerks at
 certain points but, you are aware, the same work has
 been and is being performed at numerous locations by
 non-clerical employes. This long established past
 practice on this property is a major obstacle to your
 argument and one that you definitely cannot over
 come."

 By letter dated November 7, 1988, the Organization referenced the on-situs conference held on October 20, 1988, and noted the proofs submitted by the Organization to support the claim. These included statements from employees at various locations across the system testifying that they did the work disputed herein, advertisement bulletins with job descriptions from various locations across th The Organization acknowledged receipt of statements from supervisory personnel supportive of Carrier's position and noted the claim was not for sidings or locations where clerical personnel were never located or for industrial spurs or foreign trackage. It emphasized the claim centered on who is contractually entitled to perform the work of maintaining yard inventories, that is, the inventory of cars within the designated yard limits of a station. The Organ- - ization also protested ("vigorously") Carrier's refusal to allow a joint check of the operation at the location of the dispute.


assertedly performed by the Assistant Trainmasters and noted that said work
 was protected work under Rules 1 and 2 - E and F of the Agreement. It also
 reproduced the exact language of those portions of Rule 32 Overtime and Calls
 and charged that Carrier violated this Rule when it failed to call Claimants
 (occupants of the abolished positions) to perform this work. It maintains
 that it need not demonstrate system-wide exclusivity vis-a-vis supervisory
 (non-exempt) personnel and cited Award 8 of Public Law Board No. 1605 as
 supportive authority. It also cited Award 66 of the same Board and Third
 Division Awards 13236 and 15461, The-property al. It noted that of the many pieces of
 evidence submitted to Carrier on the property when the claim was being pro
 gressed, the January 10, 1988 letter from Mr. Steve Watson (his inventory
 clerk's position was abolished on September 4, 1987) was directly on point
 since it set forth in specific detail the history of this dispute. It
 acknowledged that Carrier submitted numerous statements from Assistant Train
 masters across the system attesting that they performed certain portions of
 Form 1 Award No. 28884
 Page 8 Docket No. CL-28711
 91-3-89-3-92

 the work, but observed that it submitted an equally voluminous amount of contrary statements. It reviewed the text of the exchanged on-situs correspondence noting the points established more compelling proof. These proofs included statements from clerical employees at various locations testifying they historically performed roll-by checks of the yard and advertisement bulletins with job descriptions. It also noted that the Log of Work Performed at the East Bowl Tower for the period September 1, 1987, through September 16, 1987, showed that clerks performed by-checking dutie much time was actually spent by-checking, since Carrier refused to conduct a joint check. It further pointed out that of all the statements submitted by Carrier, only three Assistant Yardmasters "at rather" remote locations testified they made roll-by c
In its Ex Parte Submission, Carrier reviewed its rationale for abolishing the 52 Inventory Clerk that the complained of work was not assigned exclusively t- Inventory Clerks and/or any other clerical positions at Kansas City. It asserted that roll-by checks of cars had been performed by trainmen and switchmen systemwide for years as part of their normal duties and noted that Assistant Trainmasters I merely verified that the cars switched via computer were actually in the train or cut of cars. This work was integral to the Assistant Trainmasters duties. It noted that Assistant Trainmasters I used the FSS Command in the computer to flat switch cars in the computer inventory and asserted that at almost all locations they used this command from the time the CRT's were first installed. Carrier recognized that Kansas City was the one location where clerks started to perform this duty when the CRT's were installed, but it argued this did not entitle clerks to systemwide exclusivity. It noted that items 3 through 7 and 9 on the Organization's claimed work list were computer functions like the FSS and Assistant Trainmasters had the right to perform them in connection with their duties. It maintained that none of these computer functions was exclusively performed by Inven Assistant Trainmasters I were using the weigh command to weigh cars. It further observed that in vie and Rules 1 and 2, particularly E and F, thereof, Rule 1 was deemed to be a general scope rule, thus necessitating a demonstration of systemwide exclusivity. (See Award 1 of Pu 25003, 25125, and 27330.) It also noted that the Organization sought to obtain additional protective Section 6 Notice, wherein Rule 2A would be amended to include the language, "train and yard checking including roll-by checking and verification." It noted that the complained of work was an integral part of the duties of the Assistant Trainmasters I in the Towers and further that said work was performed by the Assistant Clerk positions. It also pointed out that the total amount of time a clerical employee performed the FSS function was approximately 3 1/2 hours a day or about one hour per shift. It noted that the advertisement bulletins submitted
 Form 1 Award No. 28884
 Page 9 Docket No. CL-28711
 91-3-89-3-92
by the Organization applied to locations where Assistant Trainmasters were not employed, particularly around the clock, and, as such, the inventory was maintained by other employe numerous locations on the system where Assistant Trainmasters performed this exact work. In sum and substance, it argued that since the Assistant Trainmaster was responsible for within the yard, the maintaining of inventory was immediately linked to and an integral part of his regular duties.

 In considering this case, which involved a docket the size of an unabridged dictionary, the Board finds for Carrier's position. There is no dispute that part of the work of the abolished Inventory Clerk positions was assigned to the Assistant Trainmasters I at the three Kansas City locations and no dispute, at least, as evidenced by prior Board rulings that the parties Scope Rule (Rule 1) is general and not specific. The negotiating history of the parties for successor collective agreements shows that the Organization sought more specific protective language vis-a-vis the type of work at issue herein. Since this Scope Rule dpes not define or reserve work and since there is a distinction between work which was performed and work within the four corners of the Scope Rule, the Organization of necessity, must demonstrate systemwide exclusivity.

 As a significant part of its proof, the Organization submitted numerous statements from clerks a this work, particularly roll-by checks of cars and ancillary data such as advertisement bulletins showing that the disputed work was integral to the advertised clerks position. It also argued in its Ex Parte Submission that it need not establish systemwide exclusivity with respect to exempt positions.

 On the other hand, Carrier submitted numerous statements from Assistant Trainmasters across the addressed each of the specific job functions claimed by the Organization. Its affirmative defense was as detailed and as comprehensive as the Organization. In weighing, however, these respective well articulated positions within the context of the Rules cited, specifically Rules 1, 2E and 2F, the Board cannot conclude that Carrier violated the Controlling Agreement. The Organization has not met the exclusivity test. The Organization's contention that it need not establish exclusivity as against exempt positions is new argument and not properly before the Board under Board Circular No. 1.



Form 1 Award No. 28884
 Page 10 Docket No. CL-28711
 91-3-89-3-92
 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 Attest: ~G
 TNancy J..Doier - Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of July 1991.