t






































This claim involves the question whether the Scope Rule of the Clerks? Agreement was violated at Kansas City when carmen carded cars for movement in conjunction with their recognized duties of carding cars for commodity classification.

 Car Inspectors have for many years been regularly assigned at Kansas City to inspect empty equipment in the Carrier?s possession for mechanical fitness and to classify it for commodity caroling. It is not disputed that this is and always has been a proper function of the Car Inspector positions as Mechanical Department work.

 1n addition to this commodity carding, the equipment is carded for movement, of which a record must be kept in order that clerks may prepare switching lists designating the destination of the equipment.

 In practice for the past 30 years empty equipment at Kansas City has been carded for movement as follows:

 Equipment has been carded for movement both by Yard Clerks and by Car Inspectors who are assigned to commodity carding empty cars and filling empty car orders for industries.

 The majority of the movement carding of empties by Yard Clerks is on cars received in inbound trains and cars received from connecting lines which have been commodity carded. This work is usually done at night, or during the hours when the Commodity Car Inspector is off duty. However, there may be occasions when the Chief Yard Clerk will instruct the Yard Clerks to block card an empty for movement while this Inspector is on duty; and in all instances in the Chief Yard Clerk?s instructions to the Yard Clerks, he tells them what empties, or points, to card the cars.

 jdhen the Car Inspector comes on duty, he picks up a list of empty cars at the yard office including those empty cars ordered for various loadings by industries in and about Kansas City. He alone takes this list into the yard, locates suitable cars to fill the orders, cards these cars both for commodity and for movement, cards cars not required to fill orders for commodity only, marks up his list accordingly and returns the list to the yard office.

 First. The rule in question here is a general scope rule (SBA No. 194 Award 5)
 which contains no specific description of work that would cover carding equipment
 for movement. Such being the case the meaning and scope of the rule must be
 determined by the traditional and customary practices of the parties with respect
 to the performance of work on the positions involved.

 Under the established practice of the parties carding equipment for movement has never been the exclusive work of clerks at Kansas City. Carding equipment for movement to a particular industry may involve the selection of particular equipment within the same commodity classification in order to satisfy the particular customer; and the practice appears to be based to some extent upon the proposition that such a selection calls for a Car Inspector?s skill..

                          2

                                            Award No. 13 Case No. 183


Second. The claim embraces smiting movement cards and making records of cars
 carded as well as carding the cars for movement.

 On familiar principles the writing of movement cards and the entries which the Car Inspectors make on their lists (Carrierfs 3x Parts Submission Exhibit No. A Page 1) must be considered as minor clerical work incidental to carding the cars for movement.

                      A 11 A R D


                    Claim denied.


                    /s/ Hubert ITyckoff

                    Chairman I dissent.


L l T. P. Deaton Isl F. H. Wright
 Carrier Member Employe Member

 Dated at St. Louis, Missouri August 1 195.

 -3-