PARTIES ) Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International
 TO ) Union
 DISPUTE ) and
 The Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company
 QUESTIONS (1) Whether or not the Carrier can require protected
 AT ISSUE: employees to take jobs outside of their class and
 craft for which they hold no rights or seniority?
 (2) .Shall the Carrier compensate protected employees,
 who have refused to take such assignments, for all
 monies due, under the provisions of the February 7,
 1965 Agreement?
 (3) Shall the Carrier compensate employees who have
 been forced to take jobs outside of their craft
 and class, for monies they should have received
 under the provisions of the February 7; 1965
 Agreement?

 OPINION 7
 OF BOARD:
 With respect to the Questions at Issue relating to compensa
 tion (Questions 2 and 3); the Board finds, consistent with its
 prior awards, that the claims are barred,
 By letter to Carrier's highest officer dated Play It 1970, the
 General Chairman asserted that protected employes were not obligated to take
 assignments outside their class and craft in order to pre:;erve their protected
 status. There was no claim for compensation. Carrier's highest officer, b,,,.-

 letter dated June 18, 1970, rejected the Organization's claim. On or abouSeptember 15, 1972 the matter was submitted to this Disputes Committee by the Organization.

 The questions relating to compensation cannot be considered by this Board; those claims are barred. See Award Nos. 131, 299, 310, 311, and Interpretation of Award No. 318.

Question at issue No. 1 relating to the ;ssue of whether or not Carrier tan require protected employes to perform world' at Carrier's hotel= restaurant in order to preserve their protected status involves an interpretation of the February 7, 1965 Agreement; and the Board is not bound by time limit considerations.

    _1/ The Organization asserts that these were "jobs outside of their class and craft for which they hold no rights or seniotity."

                                            Award No. 358

                                            Case No. H&RE-23-W


                          _ 2 -


The record shows that for several years Carrier has utilized employes of this Organization to perform duties as cooks at its hotel-restaurant at Bond, Colorado.

 Carrier has conceded that the work performed at the Bond Hotel "has not been contracted out or bargained away by the carrier and is not under any union contract" (Underscoring added.) Carrier argues, however, that since there is no exclusive right to such work it may assign the work to anyone and does not constitute work outside class and craft; particularly as in this case "cooks are being used as cooks."

 Article II, Section 3, of the February 7, 1965 Agreement provides in part:

            "When a protected employee is entitled to compensation under this Agreement, he may be used in accordance with existing. seniority rules for any other temporary assignments which do not require the crossing of craft lines. * * * (Underscoring added.)


            The Scope Rule of the Agreement between these parties states:


            "The following rules govern rates of pay and working conditions of Dining Car Chefs and Cooks, Buffet Lounge Cooks, Dome Car Buffet Cooks, Cook-Attendants, Dining Car Pantrymen, Waiters in Charge, Waiters, Waiter-Attendants, Lounge Car Attendants and Buffet Attendants. This Agreement does not apply to Cooks, Porters and combination Cook-Porters on business cars."


While such rule is general in the sense that it does not define the work of these positions, it is nonetheless specific in that it identifies the type of facility on which the work is to be performed. The "existing seniority rules" therefore encompass only those facilities that are specifically enumerated in the Scope Rule.

 The fact that employes acquiesced to work at the Bond Hotel and Restaurant for several years prior is of no consequence.

                          AWARD


1. Carrier may not require the employes herein to work at the Bond Hotel and Restaurant in order to preserve their protected status. (Question 1).
                                            Award No. 358

                                            Case No..H&RE-23-F1


                          - 3 -


2. The claims for compensation (Questions 2 and 3) cannot be considered by this Board, and are therefore dismissed.

              ' ` NICHOLAS

                          AIJAL

                              'ZUMAS


Dated: Washington, D. C.
 June 7, 1973