Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 THIRD DIVISION
 Award No. 37787
 Docket No. CL-37081
 06-3-02-3-42

 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Edwin H. Benn when award was rendered.

(Transportation Communications International Union PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM :


















Form 1 Award No. 37787
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-37081
 06-3-02-3-42
 2. Carrier shall now compensate the Senior Available Employe,
 extra or unassigned in preference, eight (8) hours at the
 applicable rate of $147.14 or the punitive rate, if applicable, for
 the above violation less any compensation paid.





















Form 1 Award No. 37787
 Page 3 Docket No. CL-37081
 06-3-02-3-42

























Form 1 Award No. 37787
 Page 4 Docket No. CL-37081
 06-3-02-3-42
 2. Carrier shall now compensate the Senior Available Employe,
 extra or unassigned in preference, eight (8) hours at the
 applicable rate of $147.14 or the punitive rate, if applicable, for
 the above violation less any compensation paid.






















Form 1 Award No. 37787
 Page 5 Docket No. CL-37081
 06-3-02-3-42
 1. Carrier violated the Agreement(s) on August 20, 2000, when it
 allowed Trainmaster W. C. Pfaff to make Yard Inventory
 Adjustments (YSIA) on train/track/cut at Cumberland,
 Maryland. This violation was performed in lieu of allowing this
 work to be performed by Clerical employes in the Customer
 Service Center at Jacksonville, Florida.
 2. Carrier shall now compensate the Senior Available Employe,
 extra or unassigned in preference, eight (8) hours at the
 applicable rate of $147.14 or the punitive rate, if applicable, for
 the above violation."

 FINDINGS :

The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:


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.




As Third Party in Interest, the United Transportation Union - Yardmasters Department (UTU) was advised of the pendency of this dispute and chose to file a Submission with the Board.


Aside from the Labor and Carrier representatives from the Board, also present at the Referee Hearing in this matter were representatives of the Organization, the Carrier and the UTU. As a result, extensive presentations by the Organization, the Carrier and the UTU were made to the Board.


In this claim, the Organization alleges that the Carrier assigned Yardmasters at Cumberland, Maryland, to make yard inventory adjustments ("YSIA") rather than

Form 1 Award No. 37787
 Page 6 Docket No. CL-37081

assigning that work to a Customer Service Representative ("CSR") at the Customer Service Center ("CSC") in Jacksonville, Florida.


The background for this claim is set forth in Third Division Awards 37227 and 37760.


As more fully set forth in Third Division Award 37760, the Board has jurisdiction to resolve this claim.


The record in this case shows that the disputed work: (1) was performed by someone other than a CSR at the CSC; (2) was performed by a Clerk at Cumberland, Maryland, prior to the 1991 Implementing Agreement; and (3) was performed by a CSR at the CSC after the 1991 Implementing Agreement took effect. Under the threepart test set forth in Third Division Award 37227, the Organization has shown that the work was transferred from Cumberland, Maryland, to the CSC under the terms of the 1991 Implementing Agreement and was later improperly performed by someone other than a CSR at the CSC in violation of the parties' Collective Bargaining Agreements.


Under the rationale stated in Third Division Award 37227, this claim shall be sustained at the $15.00 requirement.








This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.


                      NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                      By Order of Third Division


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of May 2006.
                  CARRIER MEMBERS' DISSENT


                          TO


THIRD DIVISION AWARDS 37781, 37782, 37783, 37784, 37785, 37786, 37787, 37788,

37789, 37790, 37799, 37800, 37801, 37802, 37803


DOCKETS CL-37043, CL-37052, CL-37073, CL-37076, CL-37078, CL-37080,
 CL-37081, CL-37082, CL-37091, CL-37096, CL-37036, CL-37045, CL-37047,
 CL-37055, CL-37063
 (Referee Edwin H. Benn)

 These Awards involve the performance of various computer functions, including adjusting yard inventory, at field locations by Clerks and Yardmasters.

 We dissent on the ground that the Board lacks the subject matter jurisdiction to decide the claims. For the sake of brevity, our Dissent to Third Division Awards 37760 through 37765 is incorporated herein by reference.

                            Mt e. 2


                            Michael C. Lesnik


                            Martin W. Fingerhut


                            aR. e"Bjarne R. Henderson


        - A" A .e""


                            John P. Lange


June 21, 2006
              LABOR MEMBER'S RESPONSE


                      TO


              CARRIER ttsEMBER'S DISSENT


                      TO


TFIrRD DIVISION AWARDS 37781, 37782 37783, 37784, 37785, 37786, 37787,37788,37789,
 37790,37799,37800,37800,37801,37802,37803

 DOCKETS CL-37043, CL-37052, CL-37073, CL-37076, CL-37078, CL-37080, CL-37081,
 CL-37082, CL-37091, CL-37096, CL-37036, CL-37045, CL-37047, CL-37055,
 CL-37063

                (Referee Edwin H. Benn)


The Carrier Member's Dissent to the aforementioned Awards is a reiteration of its previous Dissent involving the performance of computer functions at field locations by non-covered employees. The redundant Dissent is still without substance and adds no value. Its only saving grace is its brevity.

 Contrary to the Carrier's assertions and illogical arguments the history of these disputes reflects the factthatthe Carrierhas repeatedly lostidentical cases before four different distinguished arbitrators. It is time for the Carrier to accept its loss, pay the grievances and cease violating the Collective Bargaining Agreement

 All of the Awards listed above are correct and precedential. The Carrier Member's Dissent does no detract from their validity.

                        Respectfully submitted,


                        William R. Miller

                        TCU Labor Member

                        June 21, 2006