As for the claims filed for tasks/locations not involved with the three (3) cases above (See Attachments "A" and "B"), the Carrier is agreeable to allow a flat sum of $15.00 per individual claim as full and final settlement."

"The Board finds that Carrier in this instance has moved the work involved in this dispute and the personnel performing that work from various locations throughout CSXT to the Customer Service Center. As a result of that move and the agreement signed

memorializing that action (January 27, 1991 Memorandum Agreement), the parties agreed that the Customer Service Representative in the Jacksonville Center would be responsible for performing all work on the computer related to movement and recording of cars in the area covered by Jacksonville. The instant case represents one of many in which a Clerk in the field went into the computer and made a change or corrected an error. That work accrues to the Customer Service Representative in Jacksonville and constitutes a Contract violation, if performed by anyone outside of the Center.

In the interest of impressing Carrier with the need to adhere to the Agreement it made in regard to computer operations at the Jacksonville Center, the Board has searched for some remedy that would make its point. It has concluded that justice would be served by assessing a minimal payment of $15.00 per individual claim (not unlike similar claims on this property)."

"[Wlork of the type at issue in this case belongs to Clerks in Carrier's Customer Service Center in Jacksonville, Florida. The work was transferred from the field to the Center by Agreement. Employes in the Jacksonville Center have a right to the work in question."

". . . was not authorized to perform it. The work performed by him belonged to a Customer Service Center Clerk in Jacksonville, Florida."

Public Law Board No. 5782, Award 3 concerning using YSIA to move a standing cut of rail cars at Decatur, Illinois, by a Yardmaster sustained the claim awarding $15.00, finding:

". . . The Board has concluded that as a result of the January 29, 1991, Memorandum of Agreement that established the Jacksonville, Florida, Customer Service Center, the work in question belongs to Customer Service Representatives in the Center."

The above-discussed Awards in Public Law Board No. 5782 were adopted on February 14, 1997 and, until this proceeding, were never challenged by the Carrier or the UTU in any other forum.

In brief, then, yard inventory functions have evolved from manual systems to highly computerized ones; the Carrier established the CSC in Jacksonville and, through a New York Dock notice and the 1991 Implementing Agreement, various clerical positions in the field were transferred to the CSC and, at the same time, work not transferred by the Implementing Agreement remained in the field; at ten locations disputes arose concerning completing switch lists, adjusting yard inventory and/or updating class codes (depending on the location) with the parties reaching the December 1, 1994 Agreement in which the Carrier agreed that functions subject to the claims indicated in that Agreement ". . . are functions exclusively reserved to clerical employees at those locations . . . " with the exception of updating class codes at Rocky Mount, North Carolina, and Decatur, Illinois, and adjusting yard inventory at Decatur and New Orleans, Louisiana, which the parties submitted to Public Law Board No. 5782; and the Carrier did not prevail with that Board finding that the disputed work performed by Yardmasters at those locations should have been performed by clerical employees (CSRs) at the Jacksonville CSC in accordance with the transfer of work set forth in the 1991 Implementing Agreement.

Turning to the merits of this dispute, this matter was not resolved by the December 1, 1994 Agreement. As shown by the table in that Agreement, the type of work involved (yard inventory adjustment) was not checked as an area of dispute between the parties at Evansville. The disputes settled by the parties in that Agreement were the specifically named disputes concerning specific categories of work at the designated locations (those on the table set forth in the Agreement

quoted above) and with the further agreement to send three of the disputes to arbitration. Therefore, this is a new dispute.

Here, on dates in August and November 2000, Yardmasters or Clerks at Evansville (on the former 1L&N) used the YSIA function to make adjustments to freight cars in the yard inventory. The 1991 Implementing Agreement clearly states at 1(a) that "[e]ffective April 7, 1991 clerical and related functions performed by employees at the SCL, L&N and B&O locations shown in Attachment A to this Agreement will be transferred and consolidated with the clerical and related functions performed on Roster No. 18 for the purpose of establishing a Customer Service Center (CSC) alt Jacksonville, Florida." (Emphasis added) And, Attachment A to the 1991 :Implementing Agreement specifically lists "Evansville - August 1, 1993."

Taking the clear language of the 1991 Implementing Agreement as a roadmap, the threshold question, then, is at the time the 1991 Implementing Agreement took effect, did the specific work in dispute - performance of the YSIA function to make adjustments to freight cars in the yard inventory - constitute ". . . clerical and related functions performed by employees . . . [at the] L&N location . . ." at Evansville? If that work was performed at Evansville, then, by operation of the clear terms of the 1991 Implementing Agreement, that work ". . . will be transferred and consolidated with the clerical and related functions . . . for the purpose of establishing a Customer Service Center (CSC) at Jacksonville, Florida."

"In [1988, 1989 and 1992, respectively] I transferred to Jacksonville, FL from Evansville . . . . While at this location, working in the

doubts, the conclusions from Public Law Board No. 5782 concerning the transfer of work to the CSC are debatable. However, given the language in the 1991 Implementing Agreement, those conclusions do not rise to the level of palpable error and, for purposes of stability, those conclusions must be followed.

But the fact that disputed work was previously performed at Evansville and transferred to the CSC does not end the dispute. The question now is notwithstanding that transfer of work, whether that work can be performed by employees outside of the CSC? The answer to that question must be in the negative.

First, according to Public Law Board No. 5782, Award 1, with respect to work transferred to the CSC under the 1991 Implementing Agreement, "[t]hat work accrues to the Customer Service Representative in Jacksonville and constitutes a Contract violation, if performed by anyone outside of the Center" (Emphasis added)

Second, the CSRs at the CSC are covered by the SCL Agreement. In pertinent part, that Agreement has a "positions or work" Scope Rule:

"(d) Positions or work covered under this Rule 1 shall not be removed from such coverage except by agreement between the General Chairman and the Director of Labor Relations. It is understood that positions may be abolished if, in the Carrier's opinion, they are not needed, provided that any work remaining to be performed is reassigned to other positions covered by the Scope Rule."

Third, there was no agreement by the Organization to remove the work in dispute after the transfer of that work to the CSC to allow anyone other than a CSR at the CSC to perform that work.

The claims in this case therefore have merit.

With respect to the remedy, consistently the remedy for these kinds of demonstrated violations between these parties has been $15.00 per claim. See the December 1, 1994 Agreement and the Awards cited above decided by Public Law Board No. 5782. That shall also be the remedy in this case.

The arguments of the Carrier and the UTU do not change the result.

First, the Organization need not demonstrate that the YSIA function has been exclusively performed by Clerks. The work was transferred to Jacksonville from Evansville under the 1991 Implementing Agreement and the positions or work Scope Rule of the SCL Agreement then served to preserve that work to the CSRs until the Organization agreed otherwise or the positions were abolished under the conditions set forth in that Rule. And again, Public Law Board No. 5782, Award 1 clearly states "[t[hat work accrues to the Customer Service Representative in Jacksonville and constitutes a Contract violation, if performed by anyone outside of the Center."

Second, to counter the statements proffered by the Organization from the Clerks, the Carrier relies upon statements of former and current Yardmasters and other employees throughout the Carrier's property asserting that YSIA was an integral function of the Yardmaster craft, both before and after the establishment of the CSC. But those statements provided by the Carrier do not avoid the consequences of the clear language of the 1991 Implementing Agreement that transferred "the clerical and related functions" at "Evansville" to the CSC; the fact that YSIA was performed by Clerks at Evansville prior to the establishment of the CSC; Public Law Board No. 5782, Award I which clearly states "[tlhat work accrues to the Customer Service Representative in Jacksonville and constitutes a Contract violation, if performed by anyone outside of the Center"; and the operation of the SCL positions or work Scope Rule that preserved that work to CSRs at the CSC.

Third, Awards cited by the Carrier and the UTU apply to different carriers, different contract language, or different fact situations and are not persuasive for this dispute. Of particular reliance by the Carrier (and the UTU) are denial Awards with this Referee participating such as Third Division Awards 35513 (". . . the work claimed by the Organization is record keeping previously performed by Yardmasters on a manual basis") and 35456 ("The Organization has not shown that the implementation of TSS caused the transfer of Clerk's work to Yardmasters . . . [i]nstead, the evidence shows that TSS enabled the Yardmasters to perform their work more efficiently." The concept expressed in that line of Awards is that the implementation of technological advancements eliminated middleman clerical functions resulting from a more highly automated system. See also, Public Law Board No. 4795, Awards 1-7; Special Board of Adjustment No. 1137, Award 27. But the difference here which makes this case distinguishable from all of the other Awards cited to us by the Carrier and the UTU is that, by Agreement, the parties

specifically agreed to transfer the disputed work to the CSC to be performed by CSRs; the evidence shows that Clerks performed the work both before and after the transfer; there are Public Law Board Awards finding that such a transfer occurred; and there is a Rule that preserves that work to CSRs until the Organization agrees otherwise or the position :is eliminated. If the Carrier and the UTU desire a different result, that will have to be achieved through the negotiation process and not through proceedings before the Board.

Fourth, the Scope Rule covering the Yardmasters also does not change the result. That Rule provides that Yardmasters' ". . . duties and responsibilities . . . include . . . [s]upervision over employees directly engaged in the switching, blocking, classifying and handling of cars and trains and duties directly incidental thereto that are required of the Yardmaster in a territory designated by the Carrier" and "[s]uch other duties as assigned by the Carrier. . . :' That non-specific Rule cannot overcome the effect of the Organization's position or work Scope Rule, the Agreements specifying the transfer of work to the CSC and the findings of Public Law Board No. 5782 concluding that the transferred work belongs to CSRs at the CSC.

There are a number of claims presently before the Board and also held in abeyance pending the outcome of this Award and the other similar disputes. Therefore, as a guide to the parties for determining these disputes, in order to prevail the Organization must show that the disputed work: (1) was performed by someone other than a CSR at the CSC; (2) was performed by a Clerk at the specific location in dispute before the 1991 Implementing Agreement took effect; and (3) was performed by a CSR at the CSC after the 1991 Implementing Agreement took effect. If the Organization makes those showings, it has sufficiently shown that the work was transferred from the disputed location to the CSC under the terms of the 1991 Implementing Agreement and was improperly performed by someone other than a CSR at the CSC. Successful showings by the Organization in that regard will result in those claims being sustained with a remedy requiring the Carrier to pay $15.00 per claim.

We are cognizant of the effect that this Award concerning the assignment of work has on the Yardmasters. Given the UTU's intervention and participation in this proceeding - and if the conditions discussed in this Award are met requiring a finding that disputed work belongs to CSRs at the CSC - the UTU on behalf of the Yardmasters now have no valid claim to that disputed work. See Transportation -

Communication Employees Union v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 385 U.S. 157, 165 (1966) ("The Adjustment Board . . . can, with its experience and common sense, handle this entire dispute in a satisfactory manner in a single proceeding.").

Because of the number of disputes that have arisen as a result of the transfer of operations from the field to the CSC, we stress the need for stability and thus the need to follow the Awards in Public Law Board No. 5782. To do otherwise would be an invitation to chaos and would invite the filing of voluminous numbers of claims for simple day-to-day operations because of conflicting decisions from Public Law Boards or the Board. We are fully cognizant of the ramifications that the conclusions of Public Law Board No. 5782, this Award and the Awards that follow this Award, may have on the Carrier's use of personnel (be they Clerks, Yardmasters or others) at locations other than the CSC to perform various routine functions on the Carrier's sophisticated computerized yard inventory operations. We further recognize that this Award may well cause operational difficulties for the Carrier. However, as shown by the 1991 Implementing Agreement, the parties reached agreement on how the operations would be transferred from the field to the CSC and disputes arose under that language which were settled and/or arbitrated. The parties and those impacted by those actions must live with those results until such time as the bargaining process - and not proceedings before the Board - determines otherwise.

To say the least, this case has been vigorously and most competently argued in the Referee Hearings before the Board and in the executive sessions we have had in coming to this decision. But, for reasons discussed in detail above, the parties must now live with the results of previously negotiated Agreements, governing precedent Awards (i.e., Public Law Board No. 5782) and the facts of the individual disputes for the remaining cases before the Board and those held in abeyance. Given the electrifying leaps in technology producing better ways for the Carrier to run its railroad, the future will inevitably bring more jurisdictional disagreements as the parties operate under conditions that were effectively established beginning in 1991 - for all purposes a point in ancient history in the computerized age. We believe that the parties should therefore take particular heed of the Supreme Court's observation concerning the Board made in Transportation - Communication Employees Union v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., supra, 356 U.S. at 165 and apply it to their relationships and ". . . with [their] experience and common sense, handle this entire dispute in a satisfactory manner in a single proceeding" - i.e., together at the bargaining table.

AWARD