PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:












is a serious Scope violation.

    (b) The Carrier shall now allow Claimant P. A. Skinner straight time hours for the days outlined in original claim, in addition to any other earnings.


Carrier File 6 (00-1483) TCU File CO/00-1483

    (a) The Carrier violated the terms of the Clerks' General Agreement No. 10, particularly Scope Rule 1_r _93 and other IRWIes, when It allowed and/or permitted Contract Supervisor (Jerry Myers), a "Stranger" to the Clerical Agreement, to requisition various car parts and other items for the Locomotive Departments at S. Charleston and ~f'vntQn WV, and d: .... ~..--.. s__ v_

    Ch.-__..-on u, , and requisition I,~ 7t,t WC

    Mechanical Dept., utilizing the Oracle System: This worlcliad been

    assigned by letter of May 30, 2000, to Claimant's position, for

    Carrier now to assign these duties to a "Stranger" to our agreement


    iu 4 SVVpe Y,Ula lUn.


(b) The Carrier shall now allow Claimant P. A. Skinner straight time
 hours for the days outlined in original .claim, in addition to any
 other mnr earnings.

    Carrier File 6 (01-0138) TCU File CO/01-0138


    (a) The Carrier violated the terms of the Clerks' General Agreement No. 10, particularly Scope Rule 1, 23 and other Rules, when it allowed and/or permitted Contract Supervisor (Jerry Myers), a "Stranger" to the Clerical Agreement, to requisition various car parts and other items for the Locomotive Departments at S. Charleston and Hinton, WV, and requ1sitien items for the Mechanical Dept., utilizing the flracleSystem. This work had been assigned by letter off May 30, 2000, to Claimant's position, for Carrier now to assign these duties to a "Stranger" to our agreement is a Scope violation.


b) The- Carrier sh li now allow l'7-~a P y l .: ,_ sraag . .e, _
 ( ......... .tee . Sna.nuca suaa~ila auuG
    hours for the days & hours outlined in original claim submitted by

                                  PublicLawBoardNo.6290 Case No. 45: Award No. 45

          ' Page 3 of 6


      District Chairman C. R. Wilmer, in addition to any other earnings.


    Carrier File 6 lO1-0361) TCU File C0101-0361


        (a) The Carrier violated the terms of the Clerks' General Agreement No. 10, particularly Scope Rule 1, 23 and other Rules,_ wh_en_ it allowed and/or permitted Contract Supervisor (Jerry Wyers), a "Stranger" to the Clerical Agreement, to requisition various car parts and other items for the Locomotive Departments at S. Charleston and Hinton.. WV. and _rtequisitinn iter_ryc Ear the Mechanical Dept., utilizing the Oracle System. This work had been assigned by letter of May 30, 2000, to Claimant's position, for Carrier now to assign these duties to a "Stranger" to our agreement is a violation of our Scope Rmle.


        (b) The Carrier shall now allow Claimant P. A. Skinner and all subsequent incumbents, one-hundred thirty-three (133) hours at the atrninhh ~i~e r f .. ..F0. 'eG..-. 1n"n 4 4n " rn n i __ _

        ...b.. aau of her ,painMun Y\TV>-lYV klJV.7N per day-$ 158.8571 per hour), perlist contained in claim,which equals $2,509.71 for the month of October. In addition, beginning November 1; 2000, and continue each and every work day thereafter until the violation ceases, Carrier snare compensate Claimant and all subsequent incumbents, one hundred thirty-three (133) hours a monthly average- $2,509.71/daily average of twenty-two (22) days - $114.08 per day - $2,509.71, as stated in original claim attached.


    This appeal is being presented in accordance with Rule 27'/2. and should be paid.


FINDINGS:
This Board, after hearing upon the whole record and all the evidence finds that the Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute are respectively Carr; and
                                        Y

Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended; this Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and, the parties were given due notice of hearing thereon.

    Several issues surround the pivotal question of whether the Scope of the

                                  Public LawBoard No. 6290 Case No. 45: Award Na. 45 Page 4 of 6


Agreement was violated. The Organization alleges that the Carrier abolished a Clerical Position in the Mechanical Department at South Charleston, West Virginia, and transferred the duties to the Chief Clerks' position occupied by Claimant Skinner. Specific thereto was the responsibility for ordering and receipting material. Given that the Scope Rule is a Position and Work Scope Rule, the work performed can't be removed from the employees and assigned to those foreign to the Agreement. The Organization maintains that Contract Supervisor Myers thereafter began to order and receipt materials in violation ofthe Agreement. The Organization argues that this work had not been previously shared.


The Carrier denies that the duties of Ordering and Receipting Material was assigned to the position of Chief Clerk to the exclusion of others. In fact, the Carrier argues that while the duties were added to the ChiefClerks' position, the work-was shared by other crafts, non-contract employees and was by practice performed at the location in dispute by Contract Supervisor Myers.


On procedure, the final letters by the Organization dated November 27, 2001 and by the Carrier dated December 18, 20W have been r_onC._'fierpd and are a ^^-a _~.~_ --

                                        js.ii oA 4t?G LiY

property record. On the merits, two pivotal letters were presented in evidence by the Organization and written by RegnonalDirectorLayne. B®thweresimilar. Thefirstwas written to Chief Yard Clerk Skinner, dated May 30; 2000: The second letter was written to Local Chairman Wilmer- dated September 15" 2vvv, in answer 0 a request for information on how the duties of the abolished clerical position were distributed. That letter states in part:

        The ,^.31,7)' dutiia transfer red row MAR Creek. were as follows..:


            Ordering/Receiving of Material for South Charleston Mechanical department.


    The remainder of duties for the AAR clerk; ..are not assigned exclusively to the clerks at Charleston.


The Organization has provided additional probative evidence in statements from Clerks Skinner and Kirk, Laborers Shockley and McCartney, Car Foreman Browning and Extra Foreman D. Skinner.

    The Board takes serious note that the statements from former AAR Clerks at this

                                  PublieLawBoardNo.fi290 Case No. 45: Award No. 45 Page 5 of 5


location dispute Contract Supervisor Myers. Ms. Skinner states that:

    While I was assigned to the AAR Clerk Position at So. Charleston, WV, I always ordered and received all of the material for the car department. This duty was not shared with the contract supervisor as Mr. Myers stated in his letter.


And equally supportive, former AAR Clerk Kirk states that ordering and receiving of material "was never a duty that was shared with supervisor Myers." Laborers Shockley and McCartney both indicate that this input of items changed after An_gOt_ 2000, n,Irh the Car Foreman Myers inputting the inventories, rather than the AAR Clerk. Additionally, the two Foreman who wrote statements indicated that they did not share this work and farther, Mr. Skinner indicated that the Clerk was given the fist of materials needed and did all receiving ,-of material as he "did not shyer a their d ;;c; with them."


    The Organization argues that even ifotber crafts or individuals had performed


this work p_rinr to the abo7eh o~,* ACM AA D, :a.: : which the rr~_ i ..

n.Of tuCR z vaaazuu, which the Grean-Uation domes, it was certainly the work of the Chief Clerks' position after the letter of May 30, 2600 and confirmed supra. The above letter and statements present a prima facie case that the work herein disputed was exclusive to the employees and therefore Scope protected.


The Board notes that in each of these claims the Carrier Alenied that this work became the exclusive right of the Chief Clerks' position, after May 30, 21)00. The Carrier further argues that the disputed work had always been shared prior to this date. Regional Director Layne denied the claims stating not only that the ordering and receipting of material was "not assigned exclusively to the clerks" but that "Supervisor Myers input a majority of the requisition orders of material and receipted for some." The Carrier refuted each of the above statements and further, provided an audit tracT of requisitioned parts.


We have carefully reviewed the admissibility and value of each statement and evidence to the on-property handling of claims. The Board is persuaded that the Organization has failed to sustain its burden of proof for the following reasons. The initial letter of September from Regional Director Layne was fodowed-by a direct denial of its alleged meaning. The stranger to the Agreement in these claims was Contract Supervisor Myers. The Carrier stated that- "th_ic work ie shared, not on seleeted dates, but continuously, and has been for years prior to the abolishment oftbe AAR Clerk-

                                  Public Law Board No. 6290 Case No. 45: Award No. 45

    ' Page 6 of 6


position." It presented a statement from Car Foreman Myers that, while far from explicit to the issue of ordering and receiving of material. stated:

    I have been a Foreman sinse (sic) 39&0 and while working as the Car Foreman I have always performed duties that the AAR Clark (sic) did when the job was blanked or if the work load, was too great then 1 would assist in getting the work caught up. Some jobs were shared I would do sometimes and other times the Clark (sic) would do.


The Carrier further rebuttixd the ^rga-n-at=_'.vn's p.position that wtR a n ·°'°°-
                                        w'· Wav warm Other

exclusive prior to the May 38, 2000 letter, or became assigned thereafter. It provided
 an audit of parts. There is substantial proof provided in the audit that Supervisor
 Myers had performed this duty prior to the abolishment.

Accordingly, with clear evidence that both Clerk Skinner and Contract Supervisor Myers did order parts prior to the letter of May 30, 21100, we must find that the Organization has failed in its burden of proof. The letter by Regional Director

L .a pe w~;eh ;nSt' 71 _ e_.1 luUVItsaa~aau~ augycatcu '-',ex was Clearly retracted by Regional Director
 Layne as to its meaning. Finding in the evidence that the work was previously shared
 and that the letter does not prove future exclusivity, the Board finds that the Scope Rule
 has not been violated. As such, the claim must fail.

 AWARD:
    The Claims must be denied.


                ~t

                Marty . Zusman, Chairman

                Neutral Member


                    _.

                          11 .7 ,.,P

    C. $. Brockett . T. Klsmt?'

    Organization Member /Carrier Member


Date-_~