the record according to the Carrier that this information is still reported by Yardmasters to Clerks as in the past, but now, Clerks make the entry into TCS.

With respect to reporting interchange and transfer information, deleting from inventory cars delivered to off-going Roads and entering outbound train times, prior to TCS, Yardmasters reported the information to a Clerk who made the data entry. After implementation of TCS, that information is reported directly into the system by Yardmasters.

With respect to updating inventory car location, prior to TCS, Yardmasters reported this information to Clerks who made the data entry. After implementation of TCS, that information is reported directly into the system by Yardmasters.

With respect to adding information to the Morning Report, prior to TCS Yardmasters prepared this report without the aid of Clerks.

Rule 1, Scope and Classifications, provides:

"(a) COVERAGE: These rules shall govern the hours of service and working conditions of all employees engaged in the work of the craft or class of clerical, office, station and storehouse employees. Positions or work coming within the scope of this Agreement belong to the employees covered thereby and nothing in this agreement shall be construed to permit the removal of positions or work from the application of these rules.

Whenever any mechanical device used for handling, duplicating, recording, transcribing, transmitting or receiving written, typed, printed, graphic, or vocal communications, reports or records or any combination of the same within the same or between different cities is utilized for the accomplishment of work of the character performed by employees subject to the scope of this agreement, such mechanical devices shall be operated by employees covered by said agreement."

The parties also negotiated an April 15, 1960 Memorandum of Agreement providing:

"For the purpose of adopting the use of electronic or electrically operated data processing machines on the Alton and Southern Railroad in the performance of certain clerical work presently performed manually, the following is mutually agreed upon by the parties hereto:

SECTION 3

(a) There will be established a sufficient number of positions of machine operators, assistant machine operators, and key punch operator-clerks, subject to all the rules of the schedule agreement, to handle the work to be performed by the machine data processing system."

The Board has addressed similar disputes on the property between the parties.

"This is a `positions and work' Scope Rule. The work of AAR car billing is in evidence and not disputed as work which was formally done by clerical employees. As such, it is their work and may be eliminated, but not continued in part or whole, directly or indirectly by others foreign to the Agreement who have not previously performed the work. There is no evidence in the record that Carmen have ever performed such work.

The Board must decide whether the work of the Carmen, which is as it was before the CRT, amounts to a transference of work. The record indicates that the information the Carmen used to put on paper is the same as they now put directly into the CRT. The information the Carmen used to provide the Clerks is now sent directly via computer with no intermediate step. However, sending the information generates billing. The billing was in fact the work done by the Clerks. As such, the use of the CRT is

twofold, to report traditional Carmen's reports and to generate billing. The use of the CRT therefore is to fulfill the purpose of billing, a purpose which is established in the record as work belonging to Clerks. Carmen have been given the work of transmitting the information which generates the AAR car billing. While related to the duties of Carmen, the billing is not Carmens' duties and the purpose of their work has changed from record keeping to billing.

The Carrier may abolish positions, but the work of those positions must be eliminated, not assigned to others either directly or in the instant case by indirect means. Herein, the Agreement is explicit that work once assigned (the AAR car billing) cannot be accomplished by use of a CRT unless operated by the Clerks. There is an Agreement violation under these circumstances, wherein the CRT is being used by Carmen to input the AAR billing and accomplish work previously handled by Clerks."

"The Carrier contends that as early as 1989, the General Yardmasters input all the data in question into the Situation Report by hand. It notes that the mere fact that the report was recently mechanized, so that the Yardmaster now `writes' the data in a field on a computer screen via keystrokes instead of filling in the blanks on a sheet of paper, is not a violation of the A&S clerical Scope Rule.

As the Board noted in Award 26773, the Scope Rule in the clerical agreement on this property is a `positions and work' Scope Rule. In that case, however, it was not disputed that the work at issue was work done by clerical employees before computerization. Rather, Carmen were given work of transmitting information which generated AAR billing, and the billing was undisputedly clerical work. By contrast, in the present case, generation of the Situation Report has traditionally been the work of Yardmasters. Moreover, evidence in the record confirms that Yardmasters previously entered by hand notations covering crew calls and

delays in the blanks provided on their work sheets, along with inbound and outbound train information.

In Award 26773, the Board stated, `the Carrier may abolish [clerical] positions, but the work of those positions must be eliminated, not assigned to others either directly or in the instant case by indirect means.' In the instant dispute, the Organization failed to demonstrate that the work in question was work normally done by Clerks, and was subsequently assigned `to others either directly or indirectly."'

The Organization has not carried its burden in this matter.

First, with respect to the Organization's arguments concerning the Morning Report, as the Carrier argued on the property, that work appears to be the same work covered by the denial in Third Division Award 32173. However, if not so covered and for reasons discussed below, the work falls into the same category as discussed in that Award in that Yardmasters previously did this work by hand and Yardmasters now perform the same work through use of the CRT. No Scope Rule violation can be found for that work.

Second, with respect to receipt times, doubling cars from bowl, receiving, industry, or shop, storage and main line tracks, and entering inbound train times, from the record we cannot find that the evidence shows there has been any change in the work. From what is before us, Yardmasters continue to relay this information to a Clerk who enters the data into the TCS system, At best, there is a conflict in the assertions of the parties. However, the burden is on the Organization to demonstrate its assertion.

Third, generally and with respect to the other work claimed by the Organization which the record shows is now performed by Yardmasters through use of a CRT in the TCS System, the test articulated in Third Division Award 26773 between the parties shall be utilized in this matter - i.e., whether there was a "transference of work" and whether "the purpose of their work has changed from record keeping ...." Clearly, this has not been demonstrated by the Organization.

The key element underpinning the sustaining decision in Third Division Award 26773 was that as a result of being given data entry functions, the Carmen were, in

01-3-96-3-797