(Transportation Communications International Union

(National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK)

"Claim of the System Committee of the Organization (GL-11152) that:

The following claim is hereby presented to the Carrier on behalf of Claimant Charlie Noble.

a. The Carrier violated the Clerks' Rules Agreement particularly

Rules 1, 14, and other Rules, when it permitted and allowed

Laborer, John Sappington to perform the duties of Material

Control Clerk, on March 12, 1994, at the Beech Grove Amtrak

Facility, specifically loading wheels, work which is performed

specifically by TCU Clerks Mon-Fri in the Material Control

Department. This work was performed between the hours of 8:55

a.m. and 11:25 a.m. and failed to call and work Claimant to perform

this work.

b. That Claimant Charlie Noble now be allowed eight (8) hours pay,

at the punitive rate of $13.54 per hour, for March 12, 1994, on

account of this violation.

c. Claimant is qualified, was available and should have been used to

perform this work."

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 American Railway and Airway Supervisors ssociation was advised of the pendency of this dispute, but did not file a Submission with the Board.

A review of this record reveals that Third Division Award 31583 addresses substantially the same relevant facts and arguments comprehended by this dispute. In that case, the Organization contended that performance of wheel loading by a Foreman III on March 5, 1994 violated the SCOPE, OVERTIME and other rules on the grounds that this work belonged exclusively to Material Control Clerk employees. Here, the facts giving rise to the claim involved performance of wheel loading by a Laborer at the same facility on the following Saturday, and the arguments advanced by both Parties in support and in defense of their respective positions are identical to those summarized in our earlier Award.

This Board denied the Organization's earlier claim on the basis that it had failed to bear its burden of establishing by probative evidence that the Agreement reserves the wheel loading function exclusively to Material Control Clerks. Accordingly, for that same reason we find this claim to be without merit.

AWARD