PARTIES) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 TO THE ) Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
 DISPUTE) and
 Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company
 QUESTIONS (1) Did those certain changes which Carrier made at East
 AT ISSUE: St. Louis, Illinois, effective February 21, 1966, con
 stitute technological, operational and/or organizational
 changes under the provisions of Article III of the Febru
 ary 7, 1965 Agreement?
 (2) Did the Carrier violate the provisions of the Febru
 ary 7, 1965 Agreement, particularly Articles III and VIII
 thereof, when, it instituted those certain changes at East
 St. Louis, Illinois, without the giving of proper notice
 and negotiation of appropriate implementing Agreement?
 (3) Did the Carrier violate the provisions of the Febru
 ary 7, 1965 Agreement, particularly Articles III and VIII
 thereof, when, in instituting those certain changes at
 East St. Louis, Illinois, it transferred certain clerical
 work, service, duties and operations to employes of another
 craft, represented by another labor organization?
 (4) Shall the Carrier be required to return the clerical
 work at East St. Louis, Illinois to employes within the
 Clerks' Agreement?
 (5) Shall the Carrier be required to compensate each and
 every employe involved in or affected by the transfer of
 work across craft lines, instituted at East St. Louis,
 Illinois effective February 21, 1966, and each day there
 after, the wage losses they have suffered on and after
 February 21, 1966? The employes involved or affected by
 the technological, operational and organizational changes
 are shown on a separate statement attached hereto as
 Employes' Exhibit No. 1.
 OPINION
 OF BOARD: The carrier installed IBM equipment and allegedly transferred
 certain clerical work to telegraphers. A claim was filed with
 this Disputes Committee contending that work had been transferred across craft
 lines in violation of Article III, Section 1, of the February 7, 1965 Agreement.

 The same dispute insofar as it alleged a violation of the scope rule was the subject of a claim before the Third Division, National Railroad


Adjustment Board and was disposed of by Third Division Award 20217. It was held in that decision that the evidence involved did not establish a violation of the scope rule. Also see recent Third Division Award 20477 between these parties on the same issue.

 After careful analysis of the docket and the cited awards we conclude that no crossing of craft lines occurred. Accordingly, the issue before us in this case has been disposed of by our Awards 2, 19 and 204.

                          AWARD


          The answer to the questions is in the negative.


                        l


                    Murfay Iii. Robman

                    Neutral Member


Dated: Washington, D. C.
 May 21, 1975

                                                          VI