SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IdO. 192

PARTIES: BROTHERHOOD OF RAIILIAY AMD STEAMSHIP CLERKS,
FREIGHT HANDLERS, E%PRuSS AND STATION EMPLOYES
and
THE SALTM0RE AIM OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY

Ai9ARD IN DOCIfr'.T f·10. 27

STATEMENT Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
OF CLAIIf:
(1) Carrier violated and continues to violate Rules 1, 4(b-2), and other Rules of the Clerks? Agreement when it permitted the Trainmaster to assist the Chief Clerk on Mondays in the performance of certain work assigned to the Chief Clerk, and permitted the Chief Clerk on Nondays to perform other work which on other days of the week is assigned to the Yard Clerk, and

(2) That S. J. Cutlip, holding position 63-1-561, Yard Clerk, Cowen, IT. Va., be paid for one day on each date, itarch 23, 30, April 20, 27, May 4. lls 181 25, June 1, 3, 15, 22, 29, July 6, 13, August 3, 10, 17, 24, September 7.4, 21, October 5, 26, November 2, 9, 169 23, 30, December 7, 14, 21, 1953; and J. H. Morris, holding position 68-1-569, Yard Clerk, Cowen, W. Va., be paid for one day on each date August 31 and September 21, 1953; as well as similar claims on subsequent dates for each Claimant.

FIIIDIMS: Claimant Cutlip is the incumbent of a yard clerk position at Cowen,
W. Va., working Tuesday through Saturday. On Sundays relief is furnished on that job by the holder of a regular relief assignment. On Mondays the Chief Clerk absorbed the duties of the position. It is asserted by the employees that the Trainmaster assumed the duties of the Chief Clerkfs position on Plondays when he (the Chief Clerk) was out calling craws, work normally performed on the yard clerkas position.

There is no concrete proof shown by the employees to establish that the Traiwnaster performed any of the work normally performed by the Chief Clerk while the latter was calling crews or at any other time on the dates of claim. The Carrier denies that the Trainmaster did such work and inferences to be drawn from correspondence submitted by the Carrier in connection with a claim for the proper rate on the Chief C1erkQS position support the Carrierfs view. In this situation we have no alternative but to hold that the employees have not shown sufficient facto to establish a violation of the A;reement and therefore that the claim should be dismissed.

Claim dismissed.

E. J. Hoffman
Employee Member

/s/ Francis J. Robertson
Francis J. Robertson
Chairman

/s/ T. S. Woods
T. S. Woods
Carrier Member

Dated at Baltimore, Maryland this 19th day of February, 1959.