"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood, that:

1. Carrier violated the Agreement(s) when on January 10, 1990, it required, permitted or allowed supervisor Mr. Jim Sorrells to complete work orders for Miami PILL Clerk. This work at Tampa Service Center is work that has been performed by employes covered by TCU Agreement.

2. Account violation in Paragraph 1, Carrier shall compensate the Senior employe, unassigned in preference, one (1) day's pay at the rate of $108.11."

On March 8, 1990, the organization submitted a claim, "on behalf of the Senior Employee," alleging that a Supervisor performed work "normally performed by TCU covered employees, in violation of Rule 1-Scope." Carrier denied the claim, arguing that:

"Supervisor Sorrells found three (3) work orders, each of which was missing one entry. Supervisor Sorrells informed Clerk Stiles (now Hyatt) that work orders for these three trains were outstanding. After reviewing these work orders Clerk Hyatt asked for assistance in determining missing entries. Mr. Sorrells then researched the work orders for missing information, inserted same and instructed Clerk Hyatt on what to look for should this happen again.

You have failed to identify a claimant. You are fully aware that the Schedule Agreement contemplates that the moving party in a claim or grievance will identify the claimant(s) for whom the claim is being presented. This burden has not been satisfied here. The claim is therefore, denied on this basis.

Additionally, the claim presented is excessive. The actual duty at issue only took approximately one (1) minute, and any compensatory payment would be so slight it would be disregarded under the DI MINI14US rule."

For its part, the organization submitted that Clerk Hyatt had categorically denied asking for the Supervisor's help. In an October 16, 1990 statement, Clerk Hyatt maintained the following:

"Supervisor Sorrells asked me to give him the work orders. He didn't tell me why he wanted them. Later on during the night he gave me the W/Os and told me to place them back in the files. I asked him what he was doing with them, and he told me they were not complete. I asked if he had completed them, and he said he had. I knew nothing of the W/Os being incomplete. If I had, I would have completed them."

Finally, with respect to Carrier's de minimis argument, the organization submitted that it "is exercising its right to protect its jurisdiction against encroachment, however small."

Further correspondence between the Parties was to no avail. The issue is now before the Board for resolution.

The salient facts of what duties the Supervisor performed are not in dispute. Nor can it be reasonably argued that this is not routine clerical work covered by the Agreement.. The controversy revolves around Carrier's affirmative defense that Claimant asked the Supervisor to assist her. The Organization presented a signed statement from Clerk Hyatt in opposition to the second-hand assertion by Carrier's Labor Relations officer that the Supervisor had been asked by Claimant for assistance. Carrier took no took no exception to Clerk Hyatt's statement, nor did the Supervisor furnish a rebuttal statement refuting Clerk Hyatt's account of the incident. Such unrefuted direct evidence must be considered factual and dictates a sustaining Award.

Regarding compensatory damages, the majority line of precedent Awards reason that the Organization did properly name the Claimant. Even if Clerk Hyatt was not the most senior Clerk on the date at issue, she was the PILL Clerk on duty at the time this dispute arose. Finally, Third Division Award 25918 speaks to -Carrier's argument with regard to de mimimus violations:

"The Carrier's contention that the work performed was excusable as 'de minimus' must fail in the absence of support from the Agreement. The Organization is entitled, consistent with numerous Third Division awards, to protect its jurisdiction against encroachments, however small; positions and work may be made up of many small duties and tasks, which are susceptible to erosion and entitled to protection."

The Supervisor did perform duties which are normally assigned to, and performed by, the PILL Clerk at the Service Center. Carrier is directed to compensate PICL Clerk Hyatt for one call under the minimum time rule.

AWARD