Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29175
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-29332
 92-3-90-3-232
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee John B. LaRocco when award was rendered.
 (Transportation Communications International Union

 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


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

1. Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed and/or refused to call the Senior Availaole Employe or an extra clerk to perform extra work done by an employe located at Jacksonville, Florida.

 2. Carrier snall now compensate the Senior Available Employe, extra in preference, at the General Clerks rate of $114.32 for violation of November 7, 1988."

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.

On November 7, 1988, a shipper contacted the Carrier's Jacksonville Centralized Waybilling Center and requested the Carrier to divert CCBX 58069, then located at New Orleans, Louisiana, to a new destination. A clerk at Jacksonville prepared an advance/prepaid only waybill to cover the reassignment charges resulting fr
At the time the Jacksonville clerk issued the new waybill, New Orleans was located in the geographic area served by the Mobile, Alabama, Transportation Service Center (TSC). Clerical employees at Jacksonville are governed by the Seaboard Coastline :forking Agreement while Mobile Transportation Service Center cle Louisville and Nashville Railroad.
 Form 1 award No. 29175
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-29332
 92-3-90-3-232

 The Organization initiated a claim on November 28, 1988, alleging that the Carrier impermissibly transferred work within the scope of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Schedule Agreement to employees covered by a different working Agreement. In 1987 and by Agreement, many field clerical unctions were centralized and consolidated at various transportation service centers across the Carrier's combined system. Despite the consolidation, the Carrier lacked the contractual right to transfer work from one transportation service center to another. According to the Organization, when a car, located at an intermediate point, is diverted from its original destination, the prepaid waybill and reconsi prepared at either the intermediate point or the transportation center serving the intermediate point. Thus, the Organization concludes that the Carrier improperly deprived work f
The Carrier contends that for many years, the location receiving the shipper's instruction prepared reconsignment waybills. The Carrier emphasizes that a shipper may call an agent, at either the origin or destination points, Dr a customer service representative or a centralized waybilling center. In this case, the Carrier argues that since the shipper contacted the Jacksonville Center, Jacksonville reconsignment waybill to insure that the car was rerouted and the shipper billed for additional charges.

 This Board finds that the Organization failed to marshall sufficient evidence to prove that the work in question exclusively accrued to Mobile TSC clerks or that the Carrier transferred work from the former Louisville and Nashville Railroad to the former Seaboard Coastline Railroad. Frequently, a shipper changes the destination of its lading by contacting an agent or the transportation service center serving the point where the car is currently located. However, on occasion, a shipper conveys his diversion instructions to a transportation service center or an agency which does not serve the location where the car is l documentary evidence that, in the past Mobile TSC clerks prepared reconsignment waybills even when t addition, the Organization has not proven that the Carrier transferred work from one component railroad to another inasmuch as the Carrier did not establish any centralized off Thus, if the shipper had called the Mobile TSC, then those employees would have been entitled to prepare the waybill even if the car had not, at the time of the shipper's call, been located within the geographic area served by the Mobile TSC.

 In reaching our decision, the Board did not consider Item 2405.40(g) of Circular No. 48 inasmuch as the Organization did not raise this evidence on the property.
Form 1 Award No. 29175
 Page 3 Docket No. CL-29332
 92-3-90-3-232






Attest:
        cy J. e - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 3rd day of April 1992.