PARTIES: BROTHERHOOD OF RAIIWAY AND STEA1ISHIP CLERKS,
 FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES
 and
 THE BALTIMORE AND OHIO CHICAGO TERMINAL RAILROAD
 COMPANY
 AWARD IN DOCKET N0. cyey
STAMuLENT Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that: OF CLAIM:

 (1) Carrier violated the Scope Rule and other Rules of the Clerkst Agreement when it abolished the position of Steno-Clerk in the Car Foreman's Office at East Chicago, Indiana, with the close= of business on July 5, 1956, and assigned certain work formerly performed by the occupant of the Steno-Clerk position, to Carman Checker Arnold Kliest whose position in that capacity is covered by the agreement between the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of America and the Carrier, and

 (2) That William Lohmeyre, covered by the Clerkst Agreement, be compensated for eight hours at penalty rate from July 6, 1956, and each subsequent date until violation was corrected on November 6, 1956, when the Steno-Clerk position was restored.

 FINDINGS: '

 After the abolition of a Steno-Clerk position in the car foreman's office at East Chicago there were no more clerical positions at that location. For purposes of this case it is conceded that less than four (i4) hours work per day of the abolished position remained to be performed. The clerical work was thereafter performed by a carman-checker.

 Rule 1(c)2 permits the performance of up to four (4) hours work per day of an abolished position where no position under the Clerks' Agreement exists at the location when the work is performed by an Agent, Yardmaster, Foreman or other Supervisory employee provided that such work is incident to the duties of such employee.

 There is no question raised about the work performed being incident to the carman-checker position so that the only question is whether or not that employee is a Supervisory employee as that term is used in Rule 1(c)2. With respect to that question there is conflict.

 The employees assert that the Carman-Checker is covered by the Carments Agree:aent and supervises no employee covered by the Clerkst Agreement and that his qualifications are set forth in a bulletin reading as follows:


The Carrier contends that the Cayman-Checker directs the work of carmen and originates the necessary information from which reports as to work accomplished and materials used are prepared, that after an overall operation is set out by a foremen it may be placed in the hands of a carman-checker to ascertain that the work is being done on a particular scheduled operation.

    It is apparent from the wording of Rule 1(c)2 that it is not necessary in

order to qualify as a Supervisory employee one must supervise work of employees
 covered by the clerks' Agreement. It is further clear that the Agreement re
 cognizes that Foremen are not the only supervisory employees intended by the Rule.
 It is apparent that if the facts are as stated by the Carrier the carman-checker
 would be considered as a supervisory employee since over-seeing for direction and
 inspection with authority to require changes in work to meet inspection standards
 are elements comprising the supervisory function. On the other hand if the carman
 checker merely inspects without authority to direct work he whould not necessarily
 qualify as a supervisor. We have no way of resolving the conflict between the
 employees? version of the function of the carman-checker and the carriers version.
 Accordingly, we have no alternative but to dismiss this claim -

                          AWARD

    Claim dismissed.

    /s/ Francis J. Robertson

    Chairman -. _:__

    /s/ E. J. Hoffman /s/ T. S. Woods

    Employee Member Carrier Member


    Dated at Baltimore, Maryland this 27th day of August, 1959.