"Claim of the System Committee of the Organization (GL-10889) that:

1. Carrier violated the Scope Rule of the Agreement on January 4,

1991, when it failed and/or refused to permit Mr. John Walczynski

and Mr. Donald Larson to do the work of retired Material Yard

Clerk John Gellatly and used a Track Foreman instead.

2. Carrier shall now pay four (4) hours at the time and one-half rate

for November 24, 1990, and five (5) hours at the time and one-half

rate for each and every day after January 4, 1991, that the clerical

functions of retired clerk, J. Gellatly, are performed by the Track

Foreman."

,lo ago aq; qSnoiq; paullweal;s pue paanpai uaaq seq Al;elia!) Aq pauuollad AlsnolnaJd )IJom aq;;eq; s;slsui;i 6pea;sin yuawaajSV aq;Aq pajaeoa;ou saaAoldwa o; paJJa;suEJ; uaaq seq "jai:) o; paejawa )IJom ou ;Eq; s;sisul Ipueq jaq;o aq; uo 'JaiJJej

-pa;uasaJd se pauiE;sns aq;I;Eq; "se ;1 -snoijo;!Jaw si wiula in! ;eq; sislsul uopezlud.1p aq; ·ajo;aiaq,L

-alng adoas aq; jo uoi;eloin ui saaAoldwa ;;EJ3-uou Aq pauuojjad Suiaq mou si 31JoAkaq; sanBJe;l IJanaMOH -;uawuudaQ 2uiraauisu3 aq; ui ssl.raij Suluiewai aq; 8uowe Apellag Aq paplnoid Al.iawjo; )ljom, aq; pa;nqiJ;sip aneq pinoa jalJJvZ);eq; saaJ3e uoi;eziue3Jp aq,L

'ain8 adoaS aq;;o uoi;Eloin ui uoi;ISod s,uewajod )1aeJ,l, aq; o; JaiJJE:) Xq pappe uaaq awl; Jano PUB AlMOls aeeq suoi;aunj asaq; ;eq; suasse uoi;eziuESJp ay,L ·Ja;ndwoa aq; ow lsiaa;Ew slq;;o awosjo;ndui aq; PUB AJO;uanui IEiaa;ew apl& peojlleJ;o Iul;anpuoa aq; Isuodw sluiJa;ew .CpfaaM Islelaa;ew japio aseqajnd ;o Builpueq ·sja)sueJ; lelJa;ew 11381; saAJOAUi uoi;sanb ui iliom aq; ;eq; s;Jasse uoi;EziuESJp aqjl,

·uoinsodoid slq;;o;roddns ui spjemy;o sauas E sa;la;I -;;eja.xaq;oue woa; auoawos Aq pawrojjad mou si puE 'Apallao Xq pauuojad Alsnoinwd seM 31iom aq;;eq; anojd fluo paau;i ·aaojwaq; pus aina adoas ~,31JoAtpue uogisod_ E sl alng adoas aq;;Eq;;no s;uiod uoi;eziuE2Up aq,L -aing adoos aq; uiq;iM )IJoM IEauala sa;n;psuoa uopsanb ui 31Jom, aq; ;eq; s;sisul uoi;eziuvlljp aq,j, -uewajog )IaeJ,L E o; AIleilaf) uqo f )IJOIJ PJEA 1191Ja;Eye RAW JO 31JOM pauSISSE;i uaqM 166T 117,(jenuur no ;uawaaJ3d aq;,;o alng adoas aq; pa;Eloin jaiJJej;Eq; sangJE uoi;eziuajp aq,L

·prrog aq; q;im uoissiwqns E aig o; asoqa pus a;ndsip siq;;o buapuad aq;;o pasInpE gem sa,Coldw3 AeAj, ;o aaueua;uivW;o pooqraq;oig aq; ·;saja;uI ul AJed pjlqjl, sd

-uoaraq; Buijuaq;o aai;ou anp uaAIS ajam a;ndsip plus o; salved

-ulaJaq panlonul a;ndsip aq; Jano uoi;aipsiinf seq pJEog;uaw;snfpV aq;;o uolsIAIQ slq,L

a computer and all remaining clerical functions of that position were distributed to other Clerks. In essence, Carrier asserts that the Foreman now has learned to access the system and obtain information from the computer which is no different than reading from a paper file.

We carefully reviewed the detailed Submissions. Suffice it to say that we recognize that certain of the allegations that clerical work previously performed by Gellady are being performed by the Foreman. Obviously, we are unable to reconcile all of those disputes.

However, we are persuaded that certain work falling within this Scope Rule, which was previously performed by Gellatly, is now being performed by the Foreman. These functions primarily fall into the category of inputting. Under the parties' Agreement such inputting falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Organization. As such, we conclude that the Organization established a violation of the Scope Rule.

However, we are equally convinced that the Organization's claim is excessive. First, we note that even when Gellatly did the materials component of his job it was not a full-time position. Second, we agree with the Carrier that certain of the assignments done by Gellatly have now been eliminated as a result of computerization. In all, we will sustain the claim for one hour per day until the violation is ceased.

One final point. We also note that Carrier raised a laches defense on the basis that Gellady was relocated to the main office more than 15 months prior to the first date in the claim. While we are sensitive to the Carrier's concern about the prompt handling of claims, we simply do not believe that this is a proper case for the application of the doctrine of laches.

AWARD