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.

Claimant entered service as a Clerk Typist I on March 25, 1975. At the time of this dispute, Claimant was assigned to Carrier's Washington, D. C. headquarters as a Clerk Typist II in the Transportation Department. Claimant worked 8:30 A.M.- 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, with Saturday and Sunday rest days, at a daily rate of $96.27. The duties of Secretary II are:

"Provides secretarial support to Director-Transportation Programs and staff. Handles typing, filing, appointments, telephone messages, office supplies and other duties as assigned. Responsible for the assembly and distribution of daily morning reports to executive staff on an 'as needed' basis. Types confidential documents and evaluations. Provides back-up support for Senior Secretary and Executive Secretary as required."

on April 23, 1991 Carrier issued a memo instituting a rotating schedule, to begin April 29, 1991, for non-agreement supervisors to "prepare and distribute, commencing at 6:00 a. m., the Morning Report." The organization submitted a claim that this violated primarily the Scope Rule and the overtime Rule and requested that Claimant be allowed 2 1/2 hours at the overtime rate of pay per day until the work is returned to her position. Carrier denied the claim maintaining that the non-Agreement management employees had in fact been preparing and distributing the Morning Reports for the entire tenure of Claimant's incumbency in the Secretary II position. Further, Carrier asserted that Claimant's job bulletin did not have force or effect to establish an exclusive contractual right to work performance under the "general" Scope Rule. The organization responded with evidence that Claimant had in fact been performing the work until April 29, 1991, pointed out that Carrier's April 23, 1991 memorandum transferring the work to managers would not have been necessary if they had always done the work, and again relied upon the express language of carrier's job bulletin for Claimant's position.

On the basis of the record before us, we must conclude that carrier did violate the Agreement when, beginning April 29, 1991, it transferred to supervisory employees specifically described Secretary II duties which Claimant had regularly performed as directed by carrier's own job bulletin. Carrier's contention that the work in dispute had been "performed by management employees for over two years" is not supported by record evidence. The "description of duties" found in the bulletin for the Secretary II position clearly enunciates that the incumbent is responsible for the "assembly and distribution of daily morning reports." There is no indication on the record that prior to April 29, 1991, those duties had been rescinded or reassigned to any other position.

Although we are persuaded that a violation did occur, the damages claimed are excessive. The managers apparently performed the work prior to regular shift hours, but there is no indication that Claimant did not usually do this work during regular hours, nor that the task consumed no more than one hour's work daily. Accordingly, we sustain the claim to the extent of one hour at the straight time rate of pay for each day except Saturday and Sunday, from April 29, 1991, until the work is returned to the Secretary II position.

AWARD