The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
As Third Party in Interest, the United Transportation Union was advised of the pendancy of this dispute, but did not file a Submission with the Board. Form 1 Award No. 30183
The occurrence giving rise to the Claim on behalf of a clerical employee (Base Agent) is described by the organization as follows:
This was a Saturday, on which the Claimant was not called for duty. The work involved "booking" cars coming from an industry, in this instance, Gulf States Steel Company. The Claimant contended that this is work he performs "each day of the week."
By sharp contrast, the carrier contends that Foremen are regularly "required to book cars handled by them." The Carrier further states that this does not interfere with the duties of "adjusting the inventory" of cars, which remains the duty of the clerical employee.
In support of its position, the organization cites an August 12, 1988, Memorandum instructing Foremen and Switchmen to "discontinue booking your cut from Goodyear to Storage Yard." The carrier, however, responds that this change referred to a special condition at Goodyear only, and not Gulf States Steel, as involved here, and further, that the order was later modified.
In this conflicting presentation of the alleged facts of the dispute, the Board simply has no clear guidance to determine whether the October 7, 1989, occurrence was an exception to routine procedure in that duties belonging to the Claimant were taken over by the Foreman or, alternately, the "booking" of incoming cuts from an outside industry is regularly performed by Foremen, without impingement on the Claimants assigned duties. If., as the organization argues, there has been a deviation from accepted practice, a more clearly defined example is required to resolve the question.
In view of this, it is unnecessary to address several procedural issues raised by the Carrier.