carrier. Throughout the past, mechanical work on such equipment has been performed partly by carrier employes and partly by garages and other outside concerns. The carrier does not stock repairs for these vehicles except as to small items common to all. Carrier asserts that for more than thirty years this practice has existed without complaint by the employes until the present dispute arose. It is not work generally recognized as machinists' work exclusively on this carrier.

The organization cites Section 27, Appendix `B' to the agreement effective August 1, 1945, which states:

`The parties recognize the past practice on this railroad and in the industry and agree that the Management may contract with other persons, firms, or corporations for unusual or intricate jobs connected with the repair or reconstruction of its motive power and rolling stock. Minor installations or repair jobs, such as electric wiring, plumbing, etc. on buildings or other facilities at points where Mechanical Department forces are not employed, may continue to be contracted to local persons, firms, or corporations.'

We fail to see how Section 27 is helpful in resolving the present dispute. It recognizes past practice in contracting construction and repair to its motive power and rolling stock only. It likewise permits the contracting of minor repair work at points where mechanical forces are not employed. It contains nothing helpful as to the overhauling and repair of motor vehicles.

The automobile here involved was assigned to the operating department. We find nothing in the agreement with the Machinists which gives them exclusive right to maintenance work in connection with the vehicular equipment of other departments. It is true that mechanical department employes have performed some of this work but it does not appear that any practice existed under which they performed it exclusively. The record shows the practice to be to the contrary, part has been performed by them and part farmed out for more than thirty years. Under such circumstances the mechanical forces are in no position to claim an exclusive right to perform the work. Awards 1110, 1556. Mechanical forces have the exclusive right only to the work embraced in their scope rule and other work exclusively performed by them under an established practice. The claim is not sustainable under either contingency."

This claim is without any support under the agreement and is contrary to more than 30 years of continuous practice on this property. For the reasons fully set forth in this submission, it must be denied.

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.

Carrier maintains a force of machinists and machinist helpers at Osawatomie, Kansas. The question here presented is whether employes under the Machinists' Agreement have the exclusive right to the repair of over-the-road trucks used by the car department to make repairs on cars on line outside of the shop area.

The result is controlled by Award 1808. The rule involved in that dispute was similar in its material aspects to the one here relied upon. Under the reasoning of Award 1808, the claim of the machinists' organization that the repair of over-the-road trucks used by the car department belongs exclusively to machinists cannot be sustained. See also Award 1110.

A further contention is urged in the present dispute. On March 10, 1953, a local agreement was entered into between the carrier and the machinists and electricians' committees with reference to the allocation of work between the two crafts at Osawatomie. This agreement did not purport to expand the scope of the Machinists' Agreement. Its purpose was to allocate the work being performed at this point between the two crafts, and nothing more. The matter of the repair of over-the-road trucks used by the car department was not a part of the work allocated by the agreement.

The organization contends that the machinists were entitled to perform the work exclusively by practice. The record does not show that such work was performed exclusively by machinists. The practice appears to be that part of this work has been performed by machinists and part farmed out for more than thirty (30) years. Under such circumstances the machinists have no exclusive right to the work and consequently no basis for an affirmative award.

AWARD