has to do with hiring or promoting employes to positions of helpers. This second sentence, for instance, covers men who might at one time have worked as a helper, but who have lost their helper rights, and there is opportunity again for employment as a helper. Such a man, under Rule 51, would be given preference over an inexperienced man for employment. An almost identical rule has appeared in every negotiated agreement covering shop employes on this property, at least since the National Agreement. Our understanding of the rule is sustained by Assistant Director McManamy in interpretation of January 23, 1920 to Rule 54 of the National Agreement, which is similar to our Rule 51.

There were no boilermaker helpers or other experienced helpers available on May 19, 1941, at Eldon, Iowa, the point where the inspection was made. The claimant holds seniority rights only at Silvis, Illinois; he does not hold seniority at Eldon, and, therefore, was not deprived of any rights. He actually worked as a second class boilermaker and was paid as such at Silvis roundhouse on May 19, 1941. Hence, he was not deprived of employment, in fact he worked on a higher-rated position.

The employes also base their claim on Rule 73 of the agreement of October 1, 1935. This rule is applicable at the point where boilermaker helpers are employed and on duty, but it does not make it obligatory to assign a boilermaker helper to assist a boilermaker sent out to inspect and/or repair locomotives at another point. The employe at Eldon, Iowa, who did assist the mechanic, was paid as a boilermaker helper. He did not deprive any boilermaker helper holding seniority at Eldon of work. There was no boilermaker helper holding seniority at Eldon, Iowa available at that point.

It is recognized under Rule 31 of the agreement of October 1, 1935, that where there is not sufficient work to justify employing a mechanic of each trade, the mechanic or mechanics employed at such points will, as far as capable, perform the work of any trade that may be necessary. Hence, if there was not sufficient work at Eldon to employ a boilermaker, a machinist, for instance, if he were capable, could under this rule perform boilermakers' work. It follows that if there is not sufficient work to justify employing a boilermaker helper at Eldon, Iowa, a machinist helper or any other employe in the mechanical department should likewise be permitted, if he were capable, -and in this case he was,-to perform boilermaker helpers' work.

In fact, there is no rule in the agreement which even requires the carrier to send a boilermaker to a point where he does not hold seniority to inspect or repair one locomotive a month. At points where inspection of fifteen or more locomotives is required per month, then a mechanic is to be assigned, but even under these circumstances a foreman or travelling boiler inspector, under Rule 77, can inspect any number of locomotives.

In the absence of any rule which would sustain the employes' contention in this case, claim has no merit, and it should be declined.

FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction . over the dispute involved herein.

The parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

AWARD