Claim No. 1 (File: 504-3935, Carrier's File: 6-(89-1136))

(a) That the Carrier violated theClerks

General Agreement when on June 22, 1989, it

allowed and/or permitted the shop craft

foremen to distribute payroll checks to the

shop craft employees in the Huntington

Locomotive Shop.

(b) That the Carrier shall now compensate Clerk B. E. Warf, one (1) hours pay at the pro rata rate for each pay period beginning June 22, 1989 and continuing until such time as this violation is corrected and the work is restored.

Claim No. 2 (File: 504-3936, Carrier's File: 6-(89-1148))

(a) That the Carrier violated theClerks

General Agreement when on June 22, 1989, it

allowed and/or permitted the shop craft

foremen to distribute payroll checks to the

shop craft employees in the Huntington

Locomotive Shop.

(b) That the Carrier shall now compensate Clerk D. J. Belville, one (1) hours pay at the pro rata rate for each pay period beginning June 22, 1989 and continuing until such time as this violation is corrected and the work is restored.

Claim No. 3 (File: 504-3937, carrier's File: 6-(89-1169))

(a) That the Carrier violated theClerks

General Agreement when on June 22, 1989, it

allowed and/or permitted the shop craft

foremen to distribute payroll checks to the

shop craft employees in the Huntington

Locomotive shop.

(b) That the Carrier shall now compensate Clerk R. L. Scarberry, one (1) hours pay at the pro rata rate for each pay period beginning June 22, 1989 and continuing until such time as this violation is corrected and the work is restored.

Claim No. 4 (File: 504-3938, Carrier's File: 6-(89-1170))

(a) That the Carrier violated theClerks

General Agreement when on June 22, 1989, it

allowed and/or permitted the shop craft

foremen to distribute payroll checks to the

shop craft employees in the Huntington

Locomotive Shop.

(b) That the Carrier shall now compensate Clerk M. A. Jordan one (1) hours pay at the pro rata rate for each pay period beginning June 22, 1989 and continuing until such time as this violation is corrected and the work is restored.

Claim No. 5 (File: 504-3939, Carrier's File: 6-(89-1144))

(a) That the Carrier violated theClerks

General Agreement when on June 22, 1989, it

allowed and/or permitted the shop craft

foremen to distribute payroll checks to the

shop craft employees in the Huntington

Locomotive Shop.

(b) That the Carrier shall now compensate Clerk F. W. Johnson, one (1) hours pay at the pro rata rate for each pay period beginning June 22, 1989 and continuing until such time as this violation is corrected and the work is restored.

Claim No. .1 (File: 504-3940, Carrier's File: 6-(89-1163))

(a) That the Carrier violated the Clerks

General Agreement when on June 22, 1989, it

allowed and/or permitted the shop craft

foremen to distribute payroll checks to the

shop craft employees in the Huntington

Locomotive Shop.

(b) That the Carrier shall now compensate Clerk B. A. Gibson, one (1) hours pay at the pro rata rate for each pay period beginning June 22, 1989 and continuing until such time as this violation is corrected and the work is restored.

Claim No. 7 (File: 504-3941, Carrier's File: 6-(89-1164))

(a) That the Carrier violated the Clerks

General Agreement when on June 22, 1989, it

allowed and/or permitted the shop craft

foremen to distribute payroll checks to the

shop craft employees in the Huntington

Locomotive Shop.

(b) That the Carrier shall now compensate Clerk R. H. Holley, one (1) hours pay at the pro rata rate for each pay period beginning June 22, 1989 and continuing until such time as this violation is corrected and the work is restored."

Effective June 22, 1989, certain functions were now to be performed by the Shop Craft Foreman. Specifically, the Assistant Chief Clerk placed groups of pay checks into envelopes for each Shop Craft Foreman, who then distributed the checks to the shop craft employees under their respective jurisdiction.

The organization pursued a claim arguing that work historically assigned to clerical employees was being transferred to shop craft employees in violation of the Scope Rule, Rule 1.

The organization argues that Rule 1(b) is a "Position and Work" Scope Rule. It insists that such a Rule reserves and preserves work to the position which has performed that work on this Carrier for many years. Therefore, the Organization asks that its claim be sustained.

Carrier, on the other hand, rejects that it violated the Agreement. First, it urges that payroll distribution is not mentioned in Rule 1. It contends that Rule is general in nature. Thus, it contends that the Organization must show systemwide exclusivity.

Second, Carrier insists that the claim is excessive. It disputes that the task at issue takes any significant amount of time. In fact, Carrier maintains that the task performed by the Shop Craft Foreman is de min mus.

Rule 1(b) is a positions and work Scope Rule. Work such as that in dispute here, which has been historically performed by clerks at the Huntington Locomotive Shop is reserved to the Organization and should be performed by its members. This is because the work has come to fall under the position of Clerks.

However, we find no basis for any monetary claim here. Frankly, the amount of time taken to perform the disputed function is quite speculative. Stated simply, the organization has not sufficiently established a basis for awarding monetary damages to the Claimant.

AWARD