Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29069
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-29254
 91-3-90-3-130
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Robert W. McAllister when award was rendered.
 (Transportation Communications International Union

 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


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

(1) In accordance with the provisions of the current Clerks' Agreement herewith claim of the Pro Clites, employe number 1401095, Clerk-Operator, Virginia Lane, Cumberland, Maryland and others named herein.

 (2) It is respectfully requested that the Carrier now allow regularly assigned Clerk-Operator Mr the pro-rata rate of $99.70 per day, rate of the Claimant's regularly assigned position of Clerk-Operator, Virginia Lane, Cumberland, Maryland, 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM for dates of June 28, 29 and 30, 1986, July 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 31, 1986, August 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18, 1986 and each subsequent date, Thursday through Monday of each week until such time as this claim is resolved, the involved work re reestablished.

 (3) It is respectfully requested that the Carrier now allow regularly assigned Clerk-Operator Mr the pro-rata rate of $100.05 per day, rate of the Claimant's regularly assigned position of Clerk-Op PM to 11:00 PM for dates of June 28, 29 and 30, 1986, July 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1986, August 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17 and 18, 1986 and each subsequent date, Saturday through Wednesday of each week until such time as this claim is resolved, the involved work reestablished.

 (4) It is respectfully requested that the Carrier now allow regularly assigned Clerk-Operator Mr at the pro-rata rate of $100.05 per day, rate of the Claimant's regularly assigned position of Clerk-Operator, Virginia Lane, Cumberland, Maryland, 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM for dates of June 30, 1986, July 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30 and 31, 1986, August 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18 and 19, 1986 and each subsequent date, Monday through Friday of each week until such time as this claim is resolved, the involved work returned to the clerical craft and this position is reestablished.
 Form 1 Award No. 29069
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-29254
 91-3-90-3-130

 (5) It is respectfully requested that the Carrier now allow regularly assigned relief Clerk-Oper hours, at the pro-rata rate of the position assigned to work, $99.70 for 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM positions, $100.05 for 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM positions, and $100.39 for 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM positions for dates of June 28 and 29, 1986, July 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30 and 31, 1986, August 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, 1986 and each subsequent date, Wednesday through Sunday of each week until such time as this claim is resolved, the involved work returned to the clerical craft and this position is reestablished.

 (6) It is respectfully requested that the Carrier now allow regularly assigned relief Clerk-Oper hours, at the pro-rata rate of $99.70 per day, rate of the Claimant's regularly assigned position on July 2, 9, 16, 23, and 30, 1986, August 6 and 13, 1986 and each subsequent Wednesday of each week until such time as this claim is resolved, the involved work returned to the clerical cfaft and this position reestablished."

 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 United Transportation Union, as a Third Party in Interest, was notified of the pendency of this dispute and filed a submission with the Board in its behalf.

 Effective June 25 and 27, 1986, the Carrier abolished Claimants' Switchtender positions at Virginia Lane, Cumberland, Maryland. These positions had been under the co Organization herein and had as their primary responsibility the handling of some nineteen (19) switches leading into Cumberland Yard. Subsequent to the abolishments, the switches were handled by the train crews entering and departing the yard. Such cre and the United Transportation Union (UTU).
 Form 1 Award No. 29069
 Page 3 Docket No. CL-29254
 91-3-90-3-130

 The Organization asserts the work involved was improperly removed from the clerical craft. It relies upon Rule 1 of the Agreement, which reads in part, as follows:
















Form 1 Award No. 29069
 Page 4 Docket No. CL-29254
 91-3-90-3-130
 (c) When a position covered by this agreement is
 abolished, the work assigned to same which
 remains to be performed will be reassigned in
 accordance with the following:
 (1) To position or positions covered by this
 agreement when such position of positions
 remain in existence at the location where
 the work of the abolished position is to be
 performed.
 (2) In the event no position under this agree
 ment exists at the location where the work
 of the abolished position or positions is
 to be performed, then it may be performed
 by a Yardmaster, Foreman, or other super
 visory employee, provided that less than
 four (4) trours' work per day of the
 abolished position or positions remains to
 be performed; and further provided that
 such work is incident to the duties of a
 Yardmaster, Foreman, or other supervisory
 employee.
 (3) Where the remaining work of an abolished
 position is reassigned to positions coming
 within this agreement, an effort will be
 made, where practicable, to reassign the
 work to a position or positions assigned
 similar work, higher rated work to higher
 rated positions and lower rated work to
 lower rated positions.
 (4) Work incident to and directly attached to
 the primary duties or another class or
 craft such as preparation of time cards,
 rendering statements or reports in con
 nection with performance of duty, tickets
 collected, cars carried in trains, and cars
 inspected or duties of a similar character,
 may be performed by employees of such other
 craft or class."

 The Organization argues the work of throwing switches, once the jobs were abolished, should have been assigned to the clerical positions which remained in existence at the location where the work is performed, in accordance with Rule 1(c)(1). 140 yards from the closest switch.
 Form 1 Award No. 29069
 Page 5 Docket No. CL-29254
 91-3-90-3-130

 The Carrier first denies the Terminal Services Center is the same location as Virginia Lane. It refers to Rule 1(b), and asserts each of the entities listed (i.e., office, station, warehouse, freight house, storehouse or yard) is to be considered a distinct location for the purposes of the Rule. The Carrier notes it took this position at least as early as 1954 without challenge by the Organization. Furthermore, the Carrier disagrees with the Organization's statement regarding the distance to the Terminal Services Center. According to the Carrier, it is in excess of 1100 feet from Virginia Lane.

 The Carrier additionally argues Rule 1(c)(4) permits it to assign the work to train crews because such duties are incidental to and directly attached to the primary duties of train service employees. In this respect the Carrier is supported by the UTU, which refers to a Karch 1, 1955, Agreement between the Brotherh the Order of Railroad Telegraphers (a predecessor of the TCU), which gave the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen jurisdiction over "positions requiring the handling of switches on the ground.by hand or, non-interlocked switches." Under this Agreement, according to the UTU, telegraphers had the right to throw switches if such work was incidental to their train order duties.

 The Carrier and the UTU also refer to Award No. 6 of Public Law Board No. 4833 dated February 7, 1991. That dispute involved a claim filed on behalf of a yardman when the Carrier abolished operator positions at Virginia Lane on September 1, 1985. The incumbents of those positions, in addition to handling train orders, threw the switches which are the subject of the instant dispute. Following that abolishment, the Carrier established the Switchtender positions previously held by the Claimants, although they did not have operator duties as part of th Board No. 4833 held:

The Organization was given notice of the dispute before Public Law Board No. 4833 and was afforded an opportunity to submit a written brief and/or be heard before the Board as au interested third party. The Organization did not file a brief citing the Supreme Court's decision in Whitehouse v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 349 U.S. 366, insists the decision of the Public Law Board is binding upon the Organization.
 Form 1 Award No. 29069
 Page 6 Docket No. CL-29254
 91-3-90-3-130
 The application of Rule 1(c)(4) was first considered by Special Board
 of Adjustment No. 192 in its Decision in Docket No. 91. That Board held work
 of abolished clerical positions must be assigned to other positions under the
 Agreement if they exist at the location even if the work of the abolished
 position is incidental to and directly attached to the primary duties of
 another craft or class. The Third Division followed that decision in Award
 19320 also involving these parties. In that case, this 'Board found Rule
 1(c)(4) to be interdependent with 1(c)(1), (2), and (3). We find those Awards
 to be erroneous.

 Paragraph (1) of the Rule dictates the assignment of work when positions under the Agreement exist at the location. Paragraph (2) covers situations where such positions do not exist and permits the removal of work to other crafts or classes under limited circumstances. Paragraph (3) controls which clerical positions will perform the work when it is reassigned to positions under the scope of the Agreement. If the parties intended to limit the application of Paragraph (4) to situations where no positions exist at the location, they would have evidenced that intent by inserting that condition as they did in Paragraph (2) or, in the alternative, by making the provision a part of Paragraph (2). Instead, Paragraph (4) contains no limitation as to when it is applicable. It must, therefore, be interpreted to apply without regard to whether or not positions exist at the location.

 Because the operation of hand-thrown switches, when not in connection with operator duties, is work incidental to and directly attached to the primary duties of train ser in this case. The Agreement, therefore, was not violated.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest: (Z.0~1
 Nancy J ~ er - Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of December 1991.