It was called to the committee's attention that the majority of Carman Williams' working time was devoted to car inspection work and that there was more reason, according to their contention, for bulletining an additional job of car inspector than for bulletining an additional job of air brake mechanic. The committee answered that air brake work was the more highly specialized of these two branches of the trade, and while the carrier does not agree with this, even assuming it to be true, such a circumstance would not provide grounds for bulletining an additional mechanic's job in the air brake shop.

Obviously for the purpose of putting the carrier on notice as to his intentions in event the instant request were not complied with, a paragraph included in a letter written by Mr. Harry Gambill, chairman of carmen, to Mr. J. A. Crunk, master mechanic, under date of August 5, 1942, is quoted below:

In the first place, the use of Carman Williams to fill in for a part of his time in the air brake shop was not for the purpose of affording him any training in this type of work. As result of his experience as an employe of this company since 1915 as oiler, car repairer helper, car repairer and car inspector, he was already possessed of sufficient knowledge of air brake work to qualify him. It could not be expected that all mechanics in the employ of the carrier as such are qualified in certain branches of the trade and this condition was recognized by the parties when Rule 13 was negotiated in providing for trial to test ability, unless management and committee agree that senior bidders are not qualified. The rule provides that question of qualification comes after advertisement and receipt of bids. The committee cannot unilaterally add to the rule. Suffice it to say that if and when the position of the regularly assigned air brake mechanic (Staley) should become vacant, it will be filled in accordance with the governing rule of the agreement then in effect.

As the carrier sees it, the only question before your Board is whether, under the rules of the agreement, the fluctuating work in the air brake shop over and above that performed by the assigned air brake mechanic, and which is cared for by the intermittent and/or part-time use of a regularly assigned mechanic of the carmen's craft, constitutes the creation of a "new job" of air brake mechanic. Neither Rule 13 nor any other rule of the agreement defines a "new job." When, therefore, is a new job of air brake mechanic created? The carrier submits that the only logical answer to the question iswhen the work becomes sufficient in volume as to require substantially the full time of an additional mechanic in the air brake shop. Until such volume is reached, a new job of air brake mechanic does not exist and there is nothing to advertise.

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.

It is not clear, from the employes' statement of claim, whether, through their request that the new job be bulletined, they are seeking the establishment of an additional full-time position in the air brake triple valve room, or merely the assignment of such extra work as is actually being performed there to the senior qualified carman.

The evidence of record does not justify an order that an additional fulltime position be established in the air brake triple valve room, but it supports the conclusion that the extra work actually being performed there is sufficiently regular and advantageous to entitle the senior qualified carman to be assigned to it.

AWARD