"(Carrier File 6(00-1293) (TCU File 1.2386(18)SCL)

1. Carrier violated the Agreement(s) on June 18, 2000, when it

allowed Yardmaster/Clerk R. S. Dawson to make Yard

Inventory Adjustments (YSIA) on train/track/cut at Hancock,

Maryland. This violation was performed in lieu of allowing this

work to be performed by clerical employees in the Customer

Service Center at Jacksonville, Florida.

2. Carrier shall now compensate the Senior Available Employee,

extra or unassigned in preference, eight (8) hours at the

applicable rate of $142.66 or the punitive rate, if applicable, for

the above violation."

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 were given due notice of hearing thereon.

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.

In this claim, the Organization alleges that the Carrier assigned a Yardmaster at Hancock, Maryland, to perform the YSIA function to make yard inventory adjustments rather than 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.

In order to prevail in this case and under the three-part test set forth in Third Division Award 37227, the Organization must demonstrate that the disputed work: (1) was performed by someone other than a CSR at the CSC; (2) was performed by a Clerk at Hancock, Maryland, prior to the 1991 Implementing Agreement; and (3) was performed by a CSR at the CSC after the 1991 Implementing Agreement took effect. There is no evidence in this record to support that needed showing to meet the three-part test. The evidence submitted by the Organization focused upon work performed at Cumberland, Maryland. The Organization had to show that the work was performed at Hancock, Maryland, as asserted in the claim. The claim will therefore be denied.

AWARD