(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier failed and refused to bulletin and assign a foreman to work with the jimbo crane operated by Machine Operator G. A. Blackman beginning on January 3, 1989 and continuing, between Binghamton and Waverly, New York (System Docket MW-739).

(2) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, the Carrier shall bulletin a foreman's position to be assigned to the jimbo crane.

(3) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, Claimant K. R. Sindoni shall be allowed ten (l0) hours' straight time pay at his foreman's rate of pay and all overtime pay at his foreman's time and one-half rate for the time worked by the jimbo crane operator."

Southern Tier Zone 4. Claimant, a furloughed Foreman in the same territory, filed a claim for back pay, to be continuing until the work involved with the Jimbo Crane was complete or a Foreman position was advertised to supervise the Machine Operator.

The organization contends that the Carrier required the Machine Operator to act as both Machine Operator and Foreman and that it should have bulletined and assigned a Foreman to perform the duties of supervising the work at issue here.

During the handling on the property, the Carrier made the following material statement:

"With regard to your argument that Foremen are 'in charge' of work trains, the fourth paragraph of the Scope clearly defeats this. While Foremen have occasionally been assigned to Jimbo Cranes in the past, the decision to do so was made on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature of the work to be performed. In the duties the Machine Operator had to perform were of such a limited nature, having a Foreman on the site would have been extremely unnecessary."

The following provision of the Agreement is pertinent to a resolution of this dispute:

"Rule 1. Scope. Paragraph 4:

The listing of the various classifications in Rule 1 is not intended to require the establishment or prevent the abolishment of positions in any c the maintenance of positions in any classification. The listing of a given classification is not intended to assign work exclusively to that classification. It is understood that employees of one classification may perform work of another classification subject to the terms of this Agreement."

While the carrier raised various procedural objections in this matter, it would be best to proceed directly to the merits of the dispute. The organization has made numerous conclusionary allegations in this case, but it failed assertion on the property that, while Foremen have occasionally been assigned to Jimbo Cranes in the past, the decision to do so

has been made on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature of the work to be performed. This assertion thus stands as established fact. Given the express terms of conclude that the Carrier cannot be compelled to establish the new position as claimed by the organization.

A W A R D