However, carrier was willing to transfer this work to machinists in light of power house employes willingness to give it up. However, this claim seeks to enforce the transfer of work prior to the date that the transfer was made.

There can be no question but what the element of jurisdiction is involved in the performance of the work which is the subject of the claim. To bear this out, the facts speak for themselves. For ten years the work was performed by power plant employes at Havre and this work assignment was not protested.

In June, 1955 this same work was again performed by power plant employes. Following the performance and completion of this work on June 20 and 21, 1955, the machinists organization solicited and received an opinion from the general chairman of the organization, whose members performed the work on June 20 and 21, 1955, relative to which craft had the exclusive right to perform such work. It was not until after the organizations reached an understanding on this matter that the present claims were filed.

Through mutual understanding between the organizations involved, and the carrier, relative to this work performed by power plant personnel, it was agreed that this work of removing induction draft fan bearings, cleaning and replacing them, would now become machinists work. This mutual understanding was reached subsequent to June 20 and 21, 1955, upon which dates this work is case was performed for the last time by power plant employes.

In conclusion, carrier firmly contends that this claim of the employes organization is entirely lacking in merit or schedule rule support and must be denied for the following reasons:

1. Power plant employes performed the work in question for a period of ten years without a formal protest from any organization.

2. Carrier complied with Rules 1(c) and (d) of the power house employes agreement when it assigned the work in question to power plant personnel.

3. Carrier complied in full with Rule 42(c) of the agreement between carrier and the complaining organization which rule specifically states that:

"This rule does not prohibit stationary engineers or firemen from making minor repairs incidental to the continuous operation or maintenance of stationary power plants."

4. Carrier entered into conferences and negotiations with the organization involved relative to arriving at a mutual understanding and agreement as to what craft the work belonged after these organizations had arrived at a mutual understanding and so notified the carrier of their agreement.

5. Carrier assigned the work in question to employes of the machinists craft (which is the complaining organization herein) as soon as the machinists organization and the power house employes organization, represented by the Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers, had reached agreement relative to whom the work belonged.

6. The employes organization making this claim have already been given the work in question, and their demand for a penalty payment in addition is not only unreasonable but totally lacks schedule support.

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

i

The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in the 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.

The record indicates that the work in dispute in this docket has been performed by the stationary engineers since the date of the installation of the induced draft fan in 1946 at Havre, Montana, up until date of this dispute in June, 1955.

The record further indicates that the general chairman of the Firemen and Oilers Organization and the general chairman of the Machinists Organization reached an understanding in July, 1955 that work involved in docket was machinists' work. The carrier was advised of this fact in conference on September 14, 1955 and Mr. C. A. Pearson, assistant to president of personnel,. in a letter dated September 16, 1955 confirming the conference, agreed to assign the work involved in this dispute to the machinists in view of the agreement between the two organizations, but objected to paying compensation for time involved in the claim in face of Rule 94 of the controlling agreement. We hold Mr. Pearson's letter assigning this work to the machinists disposes of Part I of the claim. Rule 94 reads

"Jurisdiction. Any controversies as to craft jurisdiction arising between two or more of the organizations parties to this agreement shall first be settled by the contesting organizations, and existing practices shall be continued without penalty until and when the Carrier has been properly notified and has had reasonable opportunity to reach an understanding with the organizations involved. * * *"

In view of Rule 94, claim for compensation is dismissed.

AWARD